4 ms·

A tactic used in some almost autocratic countries is to pay for lots of ads in the press, ensuring that the press stays friendly to the payer. It's legal, it pa

A tactic used in some almost autocratic countries is to pay for lots of ads in the press, ensuring that the press stays friendly to the payer. It's legal, it passes first scrutiny, and it's effective. NYT wouldn't want to lose a big client, so they will be thinking twice before publishing a damaging article. I don't think 100k a month can break NYT journalism integrity (their revenue is 1.7 billions), but not because it's too cheap, they became a propaganda mouthpiece anyway. A high quality one, that makes you believe they're not actually propaganda, which makes it so much more effective. It's easy to see Fox as propaganda, so much harder to see NYT; and they are at roughly the same levels.

merpnderp 5y ago
That's the thing with CNN and Fox, they don't even try to hide it. They know their money makers are their opinion shows that do nothing but grind axes.
- eplanit 5y ago
  Which makes them more honest, in that regard.
  - merpnderp 5y ago
    I would think so. No one watches either one without being cognizant which team they're shilling for.
widowlark 5y ago
A spurious claim backed only by evidence from equally biased sources
tablespoon 5y ago
> A tactic used in some almost autocratic countries is to pay for lots of ads in the press, ensuring that the press stays friendly to the payer. It's legal, it passes first scrutiny, and it's effective. NYT wouldn't want to lose a big client, so they will be thinking twice before publishing a damaging article. Have you actually read the NYT's coverage of China? They're probably pissing it off more than almost any other English-language outlet.
edavison1 5y ago
This has to be bait to some extent, but we're going to fight disinformation might as well start in the HN comments section. To that end, two brief things. Journalists doing investigative reporting have ZERO interaction with advertising, so the idea that an individual ad bank would have any influence on the work you see from reporters in the paper is really out there. Editors at big papers like that are looking for stories that go hard... the crimes of autocratic regimes are pretty high on the list of shit you want to cover. You might not believe that! But the other thing is that even if ads directed coverage and could buy press silence (they don't) NYT makes the lion's share of its revenue through subscriptions. Their ad business is cratering. So on an economic level it also makes zero sense.

merpnderp 5y ago

That's the thing with CNN and Fox, they don't even try to hide it. They know their money makers are their opinion shows that do nothing but grind axes.

eplanit 5y ago
Which makes them more honest, in that regard.
- merpnderp 5y ago
  I would think so. No one watches either one without being cognizant which team they're shilling for.

widowlark 5y ago

A spurious claim backed only by evidence from equally biased sources

tablespoon 5y ago

> A tactic used in some almost autocratic countries is to pay for lots of ads in the press, ensuring that the press stays friendly to the payer. It's legal, it passes first scrutiny, and it's effective. NYT wouldn't want to lose a big client, so they will be thinking twice before publishing a damaging article. Have you actually read the NYT's coverage of China? They're probably pissing it off more than almost any other English-language outlet.

edavison1 5y ago

This has to be bait to some extent, but we're going to fight disinformation might as well start in the HN comments section. To that end, two brief things. Journalists doing investigative reporting have ZERO interaction with advertising, so the idea that an individual ad bank would have any influence on the work you see from reporters in the paper is really out there. Editors at big papers like that are looking for stories that go hard... the crimes of autocratic regimes are pretty high on the list of shit you want to cover. You might not believe that! But the other thing is that even if ads directed coverage and could buy press silence (they don't) NYT makes the lion's share of its revenue through subscriptions. Their ad business is cratering. So on an economic level it also makes zero sense.