3 ms·

I doubt any of this matters compared to the loss of advertising. If the classified ads still were what they were in 1990, newspapers could source their news fro

by cafard 3y ago

I doubt any of this matters compared to the loss of advertising. If the classified ads still were what they were in 1990, newspapers could source their news from National Enquirer and government press releases and still afford a large staff.

tqi 3y ago
That's a very good point
zackmorris 3y ago
Correct. The parent isn't wrong about the loss of objectivity in journalism, just the reason(s) behind it. What we perceive today as bias and censorship are symptoms of the loss of independently funded journalism, which is now captured by corporations due to how they direct ad dollars towards narratives which support their own public relations. This started with the loss of the Fairness Doctrine under the Reagan administration: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_doctrine Its loss was so important because it removed the payment stream which was previously provided by other programs on a media network. In other words, the news now had to pay its own way through ads shown during the broadcast, rather than from the network's general fund. Which gives guests leverage to remove those ad dollars when interviews don't go well. Then the Telecommunications Act under Clinton removed the barriers separating broadcast from print news, allowing one corporation to own all of the news in a city/region, which led to the rise of today's handful of wealthy multinational media conglomerates which mainly broadcast infotainment/propaganda: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996 The fix is to do the opposite of the pieces of legislation that created this situation, mainly: 1) Bar advertisers from influencing journalism 2) Create independent funding sources for journalism by giving it special treatment as the Fourth Estate (branch) of our government of the people and by the people, for the preservation of the American way of life The main barrier to these is the political right in the US, which doesn't want any limitation on free speech, or any taxes supporting nonessential government programs. The political left also silently maintains the status quo by profiting from it. Which pushes both parties towards a one-party equivalent where corporations determine government policy by framing debates in ways that steer people towards voting against their own self-interest to relieve their cognitive dissonance. So the real problem is how to convince a disenfranchised, overworked and overtaxed population that the answer is more regulation and taxes. I feel that other solutions won't work, because they don't address the fundamental issues. Meaning that they would favor dogma over fact-based analysis and historical understanding. We also have to remember that news has always spread regardless of medium, so the existence of the internet is a red herring. Funding is the real issue.

by cafard 3y ago

tqi 3y ago

That's a very good point

zackmorris 3y ago

Correct. The parent isn't wrong about the loss of objectivity in journalism, just the reason(s) behind it. What we perceive today as bias and censorship are symptoms of the loss of independently funded journalism, which is now captured by corporations due to how they direct ad dollars towards narratives which support their own public relations. This started with the loss of the Fairness Doctrine under the Reagan administration: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_doctrine Its loss was so important because it removed the payment stream which was previously provided by other programs on a media network. In other words, the news now had to pay its own way through ads shown during the broadcast, rather than from the network's general fund. Which gives guests leverage to remove those ad dollars when interviews don't go well. Then the Telecommunications Act under Clinton removed the barriers separating broadcast from print news, allowing one corporation to own all of the news in a city/region, which led to the rise of today's handful of wealthy multinational media conglomerates which mainly broadcast infotainment/propaganda: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996 The fix is to do the opposite of the pieces of legislation that created this situation, mainly: 1) Bar advertisers from influencing journalism 2) Create independent funding sources for journalism by giving it special treatment as the Fourth Estate (branch) of our government of the people and by the people, for the preservation of the American way of life The main barrier to these is the political right in the US, which doesn't want any limitation on free speech, or any taxes supporting nonessential government programs. The political left also silently maintains the status quo by profiting from it. Which pushes both parties towards a one-party equivalent where corporations determine government policy by framing debates in ways that steer people towards voting against their own self-interest to relieve their cognitive dissonance. So the real problem is how to convince a disenfranchised, overworked and overtaxed population that the answer is more regulation and taxes. I feel that other solutions won't work, because they don't address the fundamental issues. Meaning that they would favor dogma over fact-based analysis and historical understanding. We also have to remember that news has always spread regardless of medium, so the existence of the internet is a red herring. Funding is the real issue.