3 ms·

I would prepend 'for-profit' to the title, but also make a distinction between the journalists's intent and affiliation when considering what news can be deemed

I would prepend 'for-profit' to the title, but also make a distinction between the journalists's intent and affiliation when considering what news can be deemed independent or propaganda-like. That said, even for profit journalism has gained Pulitzer level standing, and can be intrinsically motivated rather than agendistic. There is also a world of difference between direct interference on the newsroom, self-censoring and chasing a story. Beyond that, the 'colour' of the news is pretty much in the eyes of the beholder, which is why media-literacy is so important.

p-e-w 3y ago
> I would prepend 'for-profit' to the title I wouldn't. "Not-for-profit news" usually means public networks, which by definition are controlled by the government or legislature to some degree, and have been propaganda factories since forever.
- dleeftink 3y ago
  Which of the networks are you referring to specifically? Publically funded does not equate to newsroom not being able to operate independently (and is not necessarily the opposite to 'for-profit'). While completely transparent and unbiased news remains a pipedream, I think this is a matter of degree rather than kind--messages may be coloured by many factors such as education, social circles, personal or shared histories, communicative expectations, editorial style guides, intended audiences and so on. Direct evidence of Western governments interfering in the newsroom is also hard to come by (but may have happened on occasion). However, I do agree indirect influence can be exerted through lobbying and media conglomeration. It may be more productive to vent in this direction rather than the newsrooms themselves.
  - p-e-w 3y ago
    > Publically funded does not equate to newsroom not being able to operate independently Of course it does. Whose bread you eat, their song you sing. "Publicly" funded ultimately means funded by the ruling government, who can decide to increase or cut that funding, and often appoints oversight boards that wield editorial control. > Direct evidence of Western governments interfering in the newsroom is also hard to come by You haven't looked very hard then. There have been several scandals in Germany where state ministers called public broadcasting officials and asked them to alter/suppress reporting on specific issues, in some cases for personal reasons (one incident involved a story about the minister's spouse IIRC).
    - dleeftink 3y ago
      > but may have happened on occasion I would be interested to see the percentage of news items interfered/suppressed by third-parties vs stories that are not (specifically in the case of public broadcasters)[1]. As you are right to point out, we need to remain wary of those officials who overstep these bounds. [1]: I think the World Press Freedom index is a good place to start. https://rsf.org/en/methodology-used-compiling-world-press-freedom-index-2023?year=2023 https://rsf.org/en/methodology-used-compiling-world-press-fr...
      - p-e-w 3y ago
        Considering that such scandals tend to be revealed publicly only by a chain of coincidences, sometimes long after they occurred, the baseline assumption should be that those things happen much, much more frequently than is apparent. The World Press Freedom Index is based on a questionnaire filled out by journalistic organizations. Simply put, this means that it cannot reflect what those organizations don't know. Thus a good score in the index can mean that a country has high press freedom – or that those in power are very good at keeping such incidents under wraps (or any combination of the two).
vogon_laureate 3y ago
Disagree. Non-profit “news” can just as well mean the owners are motivated by ideology rather than truth. My experience working in the “alternative media” ecosystem was very much this. You start off thinking you’re “countering MSM propaganda” only to discover as you mature that you were just spouting some other kind of propaganda the whole time.
- dleeftink 3y ago
  Yes, the dichotomy falls apart quite easily. But in the context of the crudely worded title and the observations in the article that 'all news is propaganda', we at least need to look further then blaming 'the news' itself--rather its incentive structures, and as you mentioned, affiliations and ideological goalposts.

p-e-w 3y ago

> I would prepend 'for-profit' to the title I wouldn't. "Not-for-profit news" usually means public networks, which by definition are controlled by the government or legislature to some degree, and have been propaganda factories since forever.

dleeftink 3y ago
Which of the networks are you referring to specifically? Publically funded does not equate to newsroom not being able to operate independently (and is not necessarily the opposite to 'for-profit'). While completely transparent and unbiased news remains a pipedream, I think this is a matter of degree rather than kind--messages may be coloured by many factors such as education, social circles, personal or shared histories, communicative expectations, editorial style guides, intended audiences and so on. Direct evidence of Western governments interfering in the newsroom is also hard to come by (but may have happened on occasion). However, I do agree indirect influence can be exerted through lobbying and media conglomeration. It may be more productive to vent in this direction rather than the newsrooms themselves.
- p-e-w 3y ago
  > Publically funded does not equate to newsroom not being able to operate independently Of course it does. Whose bread you eat, their song you sing. "Publicly" funded ultimately means funded by the ruling government, who can decide to increase or cut that funding, and often appoints oversight boards that wield editorial control. > Direct evidence of Western governments interfering in the newsroom is also hard to come by You haven't looked very hard then. There have been several scandals in Germany where state ministers called public broadcasting officials and asked them to alter/suppress reporting on specific issues, in some cases for personal reasons (one incident involved a story about the minister's spouse IIRC).
  - dleeftink 3y ago
    > but may have happened on occasion I would be interested to see the percentage of news items interfered/suppressed by third-parties vs stories that are not (specifically in the case of public broadcasters)[1]. As you are right to point out, we need to remain wary of those officials who overstep these bounds. [1]: I think the World Press Freedom index is a good place to start. https://rsf.org/en/methodology-used-compiling-world-press-freedom-index-2023?year=2023 https://rsf.org/en/methodology-used-compiling-world-press-fr...
    - p-e-w 3y ago
      Considering that such scandals tend to be revealed publicly only by a chain of coincidences, sometimes long after they occurred, the baseline assumption should be that those things happen much, much more frequently than is apparent. The World Press Freedom Index is based on a questionnaire filled out by journalistic organizations. Simply put, this means that it cannot reflect what those organizations don't know. Thus a good score in the index can mean that a country has high press freedom – or that those in power are very good at keeping such incidents under wraps (or any combination of the two).

vogon_laureate 3y ago

Disagree. Non-profit “news” can just as well mean the owners are motivated by ideology rather than truth. My experience working in the “alternative media” ecosystem was very much this. You start off thinking you’re “countering MSM propaganda” only to discover as you mature that you were just spouting some other kind of propaganda the whole time.

dleeftink 3y ago
Yes, the dichotomy falls apart quite easily. But in the context of the crudely worded title and the observations in the article that 'all news is propaganda', we at least need to look further then blaming 'the news' itself--rather its incentive structures, and as you mentioned, affiliations and ideological goalposts.