4 ms·

This sort of confirms my suspicion that the major news corporations in the United States are not really in business to make money, any more than state-funded ne

This sort of confirms my suspicion that the major news corporations in the United States are not really in business to make money, any more than state-funded news outlets in China or Russia are. Their purpose is to control the narrative being fed to the general population, in the Orwellian sense. Think about it for a moment - even if unprofitable, would they be allowed to go out of business? Some other entity would step in and buy them up, solely so they could use them to promote their own business/state propaganda agenda. See Jeff Bezos and the Washington Post as a leading example. Does Bezos care at all if the Washington Post turns a profit or not, as long as they can be counted on to spin their news coverage in the direction Bezos prefers, and not cover stories like the nature of AWS contracts with various federal agencies, etc.? Most people are aware of this dynamic at some level and very few would now actually shell out their own money to be fed more of this state-corporate propaganda, which is why a paid subscription service like CNN+ rapidly went belly-up. Probably the only way to fix it over the long run is to bring anti-trust efforts to bear on the corporate media conglomerates and their affiliates (i.e. Youtube/Google directs all news inquiry searches to these 'legitimate outlets' like CNN, FOX, MSNBC, blocking any access to a wide variety of independent shows being run by non-affiliated news & opinion content generators, regardless of their popularity).

cowmix 5y ago
For someone that (in theory) doesn't care about turning a profit, he really loves to put content behind a pay-wall.
- brewdad 5y ago
  There may be a paywall but it's one of the cheapest paywalls of any daily newspaper in the US. There are constant, renewable deals for WaPo subscriptions such that anyone paying more than $4 a month is grossly overpaying. In contrast the two daily newspapers closest to me charge $10 a month and $4 a week for online access.
  - hackernewds 5y ago
    Most people will not pay anything for news that can also be consumed elsewhere, so it does play against the narrative of propaganda over profit.
lazyier 5y ago
> This sort of confirms my suspicion that the major news corporations in the United States are not really in business to make money, any more than state-funded news outlets in China or Russia are. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/interlocking-directorates.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/interlocking-directorat... When big-time investors, ultra wealthy or large institutions, purchase corporate stock it often isn't done as any sort of "long term retirement investment" like small time individual investors do. They purchase the stock because they want control over that company for some purpose. Usually it is tied into other investments they own. So one company pay purchase another in order to intentionally run it into the ground. They can leverage it, liquidate it, eliminate competition, etc. Like what is suspected motivation the parent company of Bass Pro purchasing Cabela. In the case of major media corporations like CNN the value these companies represent isn't necessary the operational revenue they receive from advertisements or subscriptions. These companies may be attractive because of the influence they have over the American public. So that would help to explain why CNN did weird things like fire people criticizing the government's position in the lead up to the Iraq wars. It could be that CNN ownership had some stake in other companies that had the potential to profit significantly from the war. > Probably the only way to fix it over the long run is to bring anti-trust efforts to bear on the corporate media conglomerates and their affiliates Well that then brings up the second problem and third problems. Second problem: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/regulatory-capture.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/regulatory-capture.asp I worked in an extremely "captured" industries in the past. For example, voting machines. These corporations were regulated to such an extent that it was impossible for any new corporation to be created to compete with them. In effect the 3 or 4 major corporations providing voting machines were the only voting machine companies that could ever possibly exist. It simply wasn't financially feasible for anybody else to make voting machines and be profitable. The multi-years-long certification process, close governmental relationships, the constant lawsuits, and threats of lawsuits made any sort of major investment in the area financial suicide. Because they are so regulated they are effectively above the law. The government can't afford to see them go out of business. It's cheaper and easier to keep them profitable then it would be to go back and change all the voting machine regulations in order to allow real competition. And because of that these companies have real influence and power. It is bizarre and counter intuitive, but it's also how it works out in real life. I experienced this first-hand. And I know that the same problems exist in other highly regulated industries such as pharmaceuticals. This is why all the generic companies are now owned by all the name brand companies. The government changed the rules in the 2000's to make creating new generic companies infeasible financially. This then allowed all the bigger pharma companies to buy up all the smaller ones. Which means that the laws and relationships that these companies have with the Federal government to constrain them actually end up increasing their power and influence. There is a lot more to it then I mentioned here, but some visual reinforcement of how this ends up working is: https://www.geke.us/VennDiagrams.html https://www.geke.us/VennDiagrams.html > conglomerates and their affiliates Conglomerates exist because of anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws. They don't make sense otherwise. Conglomerates are corporations that have positions in many different industries. So a conglomerate may own a media business, a defense contractor business, a factory in china that produces children's toys, and 30% of a shipping company. Or whatever. The point is that they own a lot of positions in lots of different industries. This way they can still grow as corporations and get bigger and bigger without running into monopoly or anti-trust problems. In effect they are a hack around regulatory restrictions. And they are not nearly as popular as they used to be. During the 60's and 70's people just assumed that conglomerates would take over the entire world. That they had a special sort of modern corporate governance that was ultra-efficient and simply out competed every other form of business in existence. They would go around and use their vast asset resources to leverage loans to buy up and often liquidate smaller companies and roll that money into new acquisitions. etc etc. People would defend this behavior as it is just a way to increase the efficiency of the market by eliminating all these poorly performing and older smaller firms. The reality was that they were playing accounting games and engaging in borderline fraud. It was effectively a hack around crappy regulations that many politicians and bureaucrats in the government happily conspired with in exchange for huge amounts of personal wealth and political funding. This whole system failed and conglomerates are very unfashionable nowadays. But before they did they managed to wipe out most of the industry in the mid-west, among other things.
tenebrisalietum 5y ago
The only time people have ever paid for news before the Internet are newspapers and trade periodicals. When radio and TV were invented, people weren't paying for news from those outlets. There was some notion of public service regarding TV and radio broadcasting that kept things more "civil" for a while, but tended to erode over time. So you could break up the media conglomerates, but it isn't going to make people pay directly for news and unless you want government-funded news, that would be the only thing that could prevent the advertiser hold over news, which is responsible for the dynamic of today more than anything else. The majority of people don't want pure news or information as a whole though, because most people aren't rich. The life of non-rich people is more stressful and people in that class will always tend to seek things with narratives and emotional resonance over critical-thinking-skill-needing information when they aren't working or otherwise trying to survive.
misiti3780 5y ago
I dont think this is up for debate at this point. The pandemic made this crystal clear.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
postalrat 5y ago
You think it's just the major news corps and not social media?

cowmix 5y ago

For someone that (in theory) doesn't care about turning a profit, he really loves to put content behind a pay-wall.

brewdad 5y ago
There may be a paywall but it's one of the cheapest paywalls of any daily newspaper in the US. There are constant, renewable deals for WaPo subscriptions such that anyone paying more than $4 a month is grossly overpaying. In contrast the two daily newspapers closest to me charge $10 a month and $4 a week for online access.
- hackernewds 5y ago
  Most people will not pay anything for news that can also be consumed elsewhere, so it does play against the narrative of propaganda over profit.

lazyier 5y ago

> This sort of confirms my suspicion that the major news corporations in the United States are not really in business to make money, any more than state-funded news outlets in China or Russia are. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/interlocking-directorates.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/interlocking-directorat... When big-time investors, ultra wealthy or large institutions, purchase corporate stock it often isn't done as any sort of "long term retirement investment" like small time individual investors do. They purchase the stock because they want control over that company for some purpose. Usually it is tied into other investments they own. So one company pay purchase another in order to intentionally run it into the ground. They can leverage it, liquidate it, eliminate competition, etc. Like what is suspected motivation the parent company of Bass Pro purchasing Cabela. In the case of major media corporations like CNN the value these companies represent isn't necessary the operational revenue they receive from advertisements or subscriptions. These companies may be attractive because of the influence they have over the American public. So that would help to explain why CNN did weird things like fire people criticizing the government's position in the lead up to the Iraq wars. It could be that CNN ownership had some stake in other companies that had the potential to profit significantly from the war. > Probably the only way to fix it over the long run is to bring anti-trust efforts to bear on the corporate media conglomerates and their affiliates Well that then brings up the second problem and third problems. Second problem: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/regulatory-capture.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/regulatory-capture.asp I worked in an extremely "captured" industries in the past. For example, voting machines. These corporations were regulated to such an extent that it was impossible for any new corporation to be created to compete with them. In effect the 3 or 4 major corporations providing voting machines were the only voting machine companies that could ever possibly exist. It simply wasn't financially feasible for anybody else to make voting machines and be profitable. The multi-years-long certification process, close governmental relationships, the constant lawsuits, and threats of lawsuits made any sort of major investment in the area financial suicide. Because they are so regulated they are effectively above the law. The government can't afford to see them go out of business. It's cheaper and easier to keep them profitable then it would be to go back and change all the voting machine regulations in order to allow real competition. And because of that these companies have real influence and power. It is bizarre and counter intuitive, but it's also how it works out in real life. I experienced this first-hand. And I know that the same problems exist in other highly regulated industries such as pharmaceuticals. This is why all the generic companies are now owned by all the name brand companies. The government changed the rules in the 2000's to make creating new generic companies infeasible financially. This then allowed all the bigger pharma companies to buy up all the smaller ones. Which means that the laws and relationships that these companies have with the Federal government to constrain them actually end up increasing their power and influence. There is a lot more to it then I mentioned here, but some visual reinforcement of how this ends up working is: https://www.geke.us/VennDiagrams.html https://www.geke.us/VennDiagrams.html > conglomerates and their affiliates Conglomerates exist because of anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws. They don't make sense otherwise. Conglomerates are corporations that have positions in many different industries. So a conglomerate may own a media business, a defense contractor business, a factory in china that produces children's toys, and 30% of a shipping company. Or whatever. The point is that they own a lot of positions in lots of different industries. This way they can still grow as corporations and get bigger and bigger without running into monopoly or anti-trust problems. In effect they are a hack around regulatory restrictions. And they are not nearly as popular as they used to be. During the 60's and 70's people just assumed that conglomerates would take over the entire world. That they had a special sort of modern corporate governance that was ultra-efficient and simply out competed every other form of business in existence. They would go around and use their vast asset resources to leverage loans to buy up and often liquidate smaller companies and roll that money into new acquisitions. etc etc. People would defend this behavior as it is just a way to increase the efficiency of the market by eliminating all these poorly performing and older smaller firms. The reality was that they were playing accounting games and engaging in borderline fraud. It was effectively a hack around crappy regulations that many politicians and bureaucrats in the government happily conspired with in exchange for huge amounts of personal wealth and political funding. This whole system failed and conglomerates are very unfashionable nowadays. But before they did they managed to wipe out most of the industry in the mid-west, among other things.

tenebrisalietum 5y ago

The only time people have ever paid for news before the Internet are newspapers and trade periodicals. When radio and TV were invented, people weren't paying for news from those outlets. There was some notion of public service regarding TV and radio broadcasting that kept things more "civil" for a while, but tended to erode over time. So you could break up the media conglomerates, but it isn't going to make people pay directly for news and unless you want government-funded news, that would be the only thing that could prevent the advertiser hold over news, which is responsible for the dynamic of today more than anything else. The majority of people don't want pure news or information as a whole though, because most people aren't rich. The life of non-rich people is more stressful and people in that class will always tend to seek things with narratives and emotional resonance over critical-thinking-skill-needing information when they aren't working or otherwise trying to survive.

misiti3780 5y ago

I dont think this is up for debate at this point. The pandemic made this crystal clear.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

postalrat 5y ago

You think it's just the major news corps and not social media?