3 ms·
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
by dane-pgp 6y 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 6y agoThis 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 6y agoOne 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 6y agoPeople 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.