6 ms·

>a ruthless agency that will remove corruption from politics once and for all. Used to be called a free press, until we allowed massive mergers creating single

>a ruthless agency that will remove corruption from politics once and for all. Used to be called a free press, until we allowed massive mergers creating single companies with control of a massive media market share, and journalism trade unions to be eliminated, leaving journalists no choice but to cover what they're told.

missedthecue 5y ago
Media has perhaps the most competing firms of any nationwide industry. I don't understand this take, and I see it a lot. There are probably 20 relatively trustworthy outlets through which you can consume US news. That is a lot. Look at the competitive landscape in other industries. There are basically 4 tire companies, 4 or 5 home builders, 6 or so mobile handset manufacturers, 4 or 5 US based airlines... You get the picture. And all of those industries are still decently competitive.
varispeed 5y ago
In places where press is licensed, it is not free - because they must report in a certain way to not lose license - it also includes being nice for whomever is currently on top. I've seen here in the UK where Russia Today reported a story that should have collapsed the government, but none of the other main stream media investigated the story until few months later where the party has concocted a plausible explanation why something happened. Between that RT was given a warning that they'll lose license for interference in UK affairs... Madness.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  The press requires a license in the UK? Foreign press? Really? (American here, so I don't know. But the idea seems insane to me.)
dane-pgp 5y ago
I think you're missing the other half of the problem, which is that people actively seek out "journalism" that confirms their world view, regardless of whether it is true. Despite the mergers, there are still news outlets that produce accurate and in depth reporting, and of course it's possible to consume news from multiple opposing sources, but most people either don't care about the news or only care if it gives them a reason to hate the other side.
- billytetrud 5y ago
  This is only a problem for hype-based ad funded news. Our news is so bad today because it's ad funded, instead of subscription based. With a subscription, you read a source you trust and that source has an incentive to keep you trusting it by giving you interesting information. By contrast, ad based news gets most of it's revenue from vitality, shares, and clicks. They create hyperbolic headlines aimed to create an emotional response (usually highly negative) in order to induce people to click in a rage.
  - pietrrrek 5y ago
    One could argue that subscription based news orgs are incentivesed to provide you news which would ensure that you stay subscribed. For some people these news would have to be factual, but, for IMO most people news which are either not fully factual, or omit some information would be "preferred" as long as they (the news) conform to the opinion of the subscriber.
    - billytetrud 5y ago
      People have their biases, and people like to be validated. I agree. I just don't believe that people satisfying their biases would have much of a market in primarily subscriber-oriented news. Even todays subscription news is driven by clicks and shares in a misguided effort to compete with free news.
sbacic 5y ago
There's a funny joke about that. "Where do rich people hide their wealth in the West?" "In tax havens." "And where do they hide it in Eastern Europe?" "In plain sight". A free press won't do squat if there is no consequence for the behavior they expose. If neither the public nor the courts punish such behavior having a free press cover it will amount to very little.

missedthecue 5y ago

Media has perhaps the most competing firms of any nationwide industry. I don't understand this take, and I see it a lot. There are probably 20 relatively trustworthy outlets through which you can consume US news. That is a lot. Look at the competitive landscape in other industries. There are basically 4 tire companies, 4 or 5 home builders, 6 or so mobile handset manufacturers, 4 or 5 US based airlines... You get the picture. And all of those industries are still decently competitive.

varispeed 5y ago

In places where press is licensed, it is not free - because they must report in a certain way to not lose license - it also includes being nice for whomever is currently on top. I've seen here in the UK where Russia Today reported a story that should have collapsed the government, but none of the other main stream media investigated the story until few months later where the party has concocted a plausible explanation why something happened. Between that RT was given a warning that they'll lose license for interference in UK affairs... Madness.

AnimalMuppet 5y ago
The press requires a license in the UK? Foreign press? Really? (American here, so I don't know. But the idea seems insane to me.)

dane-pgp 5y ago

I think you're missing the other half of the problem, which is that people actively seek out "journalism" that confirms their world view, regardless of whether it is true. Despite the mergers, there are still news outlets that produce accurate and in depth reporting, and of course it's possible to consume news from multiple opposing sources, but most people either don't care about the news or only care if it gives them a reason to hate the other side.

billytetrud 5y ago
This is only a problem for hype-based ad funded news. Our news is so bad today because it's ad funded, instead of subscription based. With a subscription, you read a source you trust and that source has an incentive to keep you trusting it by giving you interesting information. By contrast, ad based news gets most of it's revenue from vitality, shares, and clicks. They create hyperbolic headlines aimed to create an emotional response (usually highly negative) in order to induce people to click in a rage.
- pietrrrek 5y ago
  One could argue that subscription based news orgs are incentivesed to provide you news which would ensure that you stay subscribed. For some people these news would have to be factual, but, for IMO most people news which are either not fully factual, or omit some information would be "preferred" as long as they (the news) conform to the opinion of the subscriber.
  - billytetrud 5y ago
    People have their biases, and people like to be validated. I agree. I just don't believe that people satisfying their biases would have much of a market in primarily subscriber-oriented news. Even todays subscription news is driven by clicks and shares in a misguided effort to compete with free news.

sbacic 5y ago

There's a funny joke about that. "Where do rich people hide their wealth in the West?" "In tax havens." "And where do they hide it in Eastern Europe?" "In plain sight". A free press won't do squat if there is no consequence for the behavior they expose. If neither the public nor the courts punish such behavior having a free press cover it will amount to very little.