4 ms·

>"This then led to deterioration of journalism and its inevitable transformation into sensationalism and entertainment, again driven by the incentives of the ad

>"This then led to deterioration of journalism and its inevitable transformation into sensationalism and entertainment, again driven by the incentives of the ad-monetized business model, because clickbait makes more ad money." People have this notion that the media used to be way more honest and impartial before the digital age but I doubt that was ever the case. Papers were playing fast and loose with the truth long before the ad revenue model in order to get subscriptions (edit: and quite frankly, to be partisan and shape public opinion). The internet no doubt accelerated things, but I assert it only exacerbated what was endemic to journalism itself. Even George Washington had to deal with sensationalism and slander: "He regarded the press as a disuniting, "diabolical" force of falsehoods, sentiments that he expressed in his Farewell Address." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington#Second_term https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington#Second_term

FridayoLeary 5y ago
I think people have short memories. They perceive that the news used to be better, so they assume it was always that way and that the current supposed decline is unfixable- after all, such a state of affairs has no precedent! Similarly with claims of censorship over covid. Yes it is a cause for concern, but no, it probably won't lead to the Ministry of Information, as some people claim. But crucially, even if it does, that isn't in itself dystopia, our governments created propoganda ministries during WW2, and they don't continue to exist today. Military censorship has always existed but the propoganda ministry of WW2 was much more active than just censoring military information.
bduerst 5y ago
Also Yellow Press, which was the big fake news of the late 1800/early 1900s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism For a while during the last half of the 20th century, this type of sensationalism was staved off though, as the FCC had determined anyone with a news broadcast license had the public responsibility to present different sides to controversial issues. And for a while, it worked pretty well. This was the fairness doctrine, which was abolished in 1987: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine
- ipaddr 5y ago
  Thank you for your research and insight. I was trying to figure out why both sides stopped being presented. In the 90s, 2000s both sides were still presented until Omaba, got really bad under Trump. Now a cnn panel of 6 people all have to agree with each other or they won't be back next week.
  - bduerst 5y ago
    Yeah despite being abolished in 1987, the lack of fairness doctrine took about a decade or two for the market to adjust (as conglomerates like Sinclair grew). We're only recently getting back to early 20th century sensationalism levels it seems.

FridayoLeary 5y ago

I think people have short memories. They perceive that the news used to be better, so they assume it was always that way and that the current supposed decline is unfixable- after all, such a state of affairs has no precedent! Similarly with claims of censorship over covid. Yes it is a cause for concern, but no, it probably won't lead to the Ministry of Information, as some people claim. But crucially, even if it does, that isn't in itself dystopia, our governments created propoganda ministries during WW2, and they don't continue to exist today. Military censorship has always existed but the propoganda ministry of WW2 was much more active than just censoring military information.

bduerst 5y ago

Also Yellow Press, which was the big fake news of the late 1800/early 1900s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism For a while during the last half of the 20th century, this type of sensationalism was staved off though, as the FCC had determined anyone with a news broadcast license had the public responsibility to present different sides to controversial issues. And for a while, it worked pretty well. This was the fairness doctrine, which was abolished in 1987: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine

ipaddr 5y ago
Thank you for your research and insight. I was trying to figure out why both sides stopped being presented. In the 90s, 2000s both sides were still presented until Omaba, got really bad under Trump. Now a cnn panel of 6 people all have to agree with each other or they won't be back next week.
- bduerst 5y ago
  Yeah despite being abolished in 1987, the lack of fairness doctrine took about a decade or two for the market to adjust (as conglomerates like Sinclair grew). We're only recently getting back to early 20th century sensationalism levels it seems.