3 ms·
Ahh, the good old "it is only for your good" argument. I don't buy it. There wouldn't be any unhappy media consumers if that statement were universally true.
by lynx23 3y ago
Ahh, the good old "it is only for your good" argument. I don't buy it. There wouldn't be any unhappy media consumers if that statement were universally true. Everytime I read something which has been badly researched or which is blatantly trying to manipulate me and I feel like this is bad journalism, is the media givng me what I want right now? Nope.
- maratc 3y agoYou might be mixing between "giving people what they want" and "giving you what you want". The media is in the former, not latter, business.
- lynx23 3y agoThe average person is to dumb to deserve quality reporting is another way to put what you just said. Even if that might be true, it doesn't change anything about my perception of modern journalism.
- robertlagrant 3y agoIt's not about deserving. You're looking at this from a slightly odd angle. It's just saying there's no conspiracy; just market forces.
- lynx23 3y agoI dont remember claiming there is any sort of conspiracy. All I am saying is that you can't expect people to pay for low quality output. The other side seems to pretend that in capitalism, the consumer is supposed to pay to improve the product quality. I seriously doublt it works that way. What do media companies expect, a sort of loan from consumers for future quality articles?
- robertlagrant 3y agoYou don't have to claim it for the precious commenter to be saying that. They could be replying to someone else.
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago"Deserve"? No. "Seek"? Probably yes.
- plemer 3y ago*too dumb