3 ms·
Embracing activism isn't necessarily a shooting oneself in the foot, it can be a way of trying to ensure greater profitability. A case in point is The Guardian
by Mediterraneo10 5y ago
Embracing activism isn't necessarily a shooting oneself in the foot, it can be a way of trying to ensure greater profitability. A case in point is The Guardian which took a huge turn in the last decade ago from traditional British working-class themes to trans issues and the specific kind of race debates originating from the US. By doing so, the newspaper could, firstly, win the allegiance of self-identified "woke" readers (who are often affluent and thus a target for advertisers). But even for other readers, culture-war-related reporting can get people all fired up and thus generate views and ad impressions.
- fossuser 5y agoSure and that's why they do it, but it's feels like cutting off your nose to spite your face. I think the future will mostly be the best writers being directly supported by people interested in their beat. I'm not sure how generic media orgs will continue on, but I'd expect the quality to continue to degrade.
- michaelt 5y agoInteresting idea. What do you imagine would happen to the global health correspondent when there's not a pandemic going on, or the war correspondent when there's not a war going on?
- CalRobert 5y agoI pay for the Guardian mostly because it's the only paper I know that covers global stories and gives climate breakdown anything resembling the degree of coverage it deserves. For a while I subscribed to The Times, but felt dirty supporting a Murdoch-owned paper.
- hardlianotion 5y agoI used to get the Guardian paper delivered - that makes me feel sad.