7 ms·
US Media Is Collapsing
- cbhrocks 3y agoReporters whose paycheck depends upon government subsidies, what could go wrong? I feel like I see this pattern a lot where people see a changing industry with a lot of legacy companies struggling to adapt and their first inclination is to step in with the government to save them/prop them up. I say let them sort it out and try to adapt. They might not be successful but at least we won’t be stuck propping them up.
- derelicta 3y agoI also don't like subsidies. Id prefer either full state ownership of the press, or state-funded worker coops.
- Georgelemental 3y agoLike this? http://rodong.rep.kp/en/ http://rodong.rep.kp/en/
- derelicta 3y agoYeah totally, u got it right this time sport!
- lazide 3y agoAnytime someone proposes something like this - what would you expect would have happened if this was the case when Trump was president and we had COVID? Would the outcome have been better, or worse?
- janice1999 3y agoThere is no need to guess. Many European countries have national broadcasters which remain independent of the government, including mine. The BBC even has political appointees at its head but is still critical of the UK government, especially on its COVID response.
- lazide 3y agoSo the BBC reports on the royal scandals as much as the Sun? Or does the Sun act as a counterweight, perhaps?
- Georgelemental 3y agoIn my experience French state media tends to uncritically repeat the Macronist party line, but YMMV I guess
- jaggs 3y agoHmm...the BBC is definitely not impartial. As a cursory examination of Laura Kusenberg's hit job on Jeremy Corbyn will show. Also https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64648164 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64648164
- swed420 3y agoThere was negligible difference between 45 & 46 on issues of COVID. Capital was driving that decision framework as always. https://www.thegauntlet.news/p/how-the-press-manufactured-consent https://www.thegauntlet.news/p/how-the-press-manufactured-co...
- blackhawkC17 3y agoAnd the state will use it to disseminate awesome propaganda, e.g., Russia Today and China Global Television Network.
- derelicta 3y agoMaybe? Maybe not. It's been done before. For example in CH our biggest national broadcaster is a state company. It's not as totalitarian as you might think. It is biased for sure, but as biased as private operators. Don't forget private cable networks also reflect the political orientation of their owners.
- swed420 3y agoBut we already have awesome propaganda at home, orchestrated by capital. https://www.thegauntlet.news/p/how-the-press-manufactured-consent https://www.thegauntlet.news/p/how-the-press-manufactured-co...
- piva00 3y agoWhile Sweden has SVT, Norway has NRK, Denmark has DR, etc. Cherry-picking from totalitarian states is a very weak argument...
- derelicta 3y agoWow so totalitarian, amirite guyz?
- sam_lowry_ 3y agoYou forgot UK and BBC.
- Dalewyn 3y agoAnd Japan and NHK. I detest all media equally, but I particularly detest those funded by tax monies because they don't even have to ask for their requisite funds.
- swed420 3y ago> Id prefer either full state ownership of the press, or state-funded worker coops. As long as it means abolishing paywalls I'm all for it. There should be no gatekeeping of news or information generally in a healthy human-first society.
- hollerith 3y agoWhat the hell? I hope you're just trolling.
- swed420 3y agoNope. We are overdue for a massive shift in how things are incentivized. I'm not suggesting the reporters doing work shouldn't have their basic needs met. Everyone should. The profit is everyone can read all the news. More things need to be opened up for the public good. We're all standing on the shoulders of giants. Most notions of intellectual property should be abolished. AI training is making it painfully obvious. Let everyone and everything benefit from everyone and everything, especially where technology makes this trivial compared to the old days of costly physical distribution.
- diogenescynic 3y agoI can hardly think of any media publications that are still relevant, and worth subscribing to--and they're all business related (FT, Barrons, Economist). Anything that used to be a hobby (music, photography, etc.) has now moved onto another medium like YouTube. It's sad because I used to absolutely love browsing magazine stands, but now the content is already 3-4 months out dated and usually just a regurgitation (without citation) or something that already circulated online.
- pif 3y ago> I can hardly think of any media publications that are still relevant, and worth subscribing to--and they're all business related ... Anything that used to be a hobby (music, photography, etc.) has now moved ... Because businesses keep paying, and hobbyists stopped paying as soon as they had any alternative.
- derelicta 3y agoI love the idea of media co-ops. I'm a subscriber to one: republik.ch and so far I haven't been disappointed by what I've read.
- Dalewyn 3y agoUS media is collapsing? Good. I want more.
- MuffinFlavored 3y agoI feel like I've noticed an increase in low-level comments like this lately. I'd expect to find this comment on a really popular subreddit where the masses go. Basically contains a knee-jerk reaction to the headline/title and nothing else.
- shiftpgdn 3y agoI think most people in the US rightfully have a total disdain for the media. The vast majority of articles are clickbait, propaganda or are outright wrong. Many big organizations (Hearst) have outsourced the majority of local reporting to the third world countries where they can pay pennies on the dollar.
- MuffinFlavored 3y ago> I think most people in the US rightfully have a total disdain for the media. yes and no. > In 2022, there were 161.42 million people registered to vote in the United States. > As of December 7, 2020, 66.7 percent of the eligible voting population in the United States voted in the 2020 presidential election 2020 election had 158.398m votes ~239m eligible voters I'm lead to believe that a significant portion of those "active voters" are influenced/pay attention to/care about the media. Whether it's a weird "self-harm" relationship where it makes them upset/sick/mad, they still "do it to themselves"
- Dalewyn 3y ago>I'm lead to believe that a significant portion of those "active voters" are influenced/pay attention to/care about the media. By that definition, I am not one of them.
- gaws 3y ago
- blackhawkC17 3y agoCollapsing because of technological changes, and most journalists being clickbaiters and liars. IMHO, it's better we're left with the few successful media houses (WSJ, Reuters, AP, Bloomberg, etc.) carrying the industry on its backs, the rest should be free to fizzle out in a free market...times have changed.
- MuffinFlavored 3y ago> IMHO, it's better we're left with the few successful media houses (WSJ, Reuters, AP, Bloomberg, etc.) carrying the industry on its backs Where do these fit in: mainstream media outlets ABC (Disney) MSNBC / NBC (Comcast) FOX / FOX News / CBS news (Paramount) CNN (Warner Bros. Discovery)
- blackhawkC17 3y agoCable news should be better classified under "entertainment".
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- WalterBright 3y ago> public subsidies to smaller news outlets, and eventually industry transformation into a publicly funded system Ah yes, state run media, Pravda and Isvestia! Always the same result, state-approved propaganda.
- piva00 3y agoState-run media is very common in the Nordics (SVT, NRK, DR, etc.), not the same result. Always the same result is your opinion, not reality.
- WalterBright 3y agoAre you sure about that? Sometimes news can appear "fair and balanced" if it fits in with one's own bias. Every news organization heatedly claims it is "fair and balanced".
- piva00 3y agoI'm pretty sure, you can check for yourself with Google Translate.
- WalterBright 3y agoI wouldn't know because I know nothing about Scandinavian politics. Every news source is biased. Do these newspapers ever significantly attack the politicians that control their funding?
- piva00 3y agoOf course, every news source is biased, humans are biased and I'd say it's impossible to be absolutely objective in reporting the news. That doesn't mean the bias is as detrimental as news sources in the US landscape. One example of bias from SVT was the unwillingness to criticise immigration policies but not due to political reasons but probably more cultural ones (not appear racist, a bit of "Swedish shame" in that). Doesn't mean it invalidates the whole organisation because of it. > Do these newspapers ever significantly attack the politicians that control their funding? Yes, they do, reporting on government scandals is absolutely normal (i.e.: Karolinska University hospital corruption). Even though there's a tendency for right-wing governments to try to rein in the reporting I wouldn't say even then it's influenced much. The BBC under the Tories is a clear example of that being eroding over time, which is a shame since the BBC used to be more trusted before the past 10-12 years.
- dumpsterlid 3y ago[dead]
- WalterBright 3y agoI remember when NPR was outraged at the suggestion that government funding influenced their slant on the news, as they weren't dependent on the government funding they received. So just stop accepting the funding!
- beej71 3y agoIn NPRs defense, I haven't seen them change much from administration to administration.
- paleotrope 3y agoThey were captured by one party a long time ago.
- swed420 3y agoThey're captured by capital, as are both corporate parties
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- HumblyTossed 3y agoI mean, who didn't see this coming when companies like Clear Channel started buying and homogenizing everything they could get their grubby hands on?
- k310 3y agoToo much consolidation in media. Local and alternative voices fade. (IMO) The solution to monopolies is not to rubber-stamp them into existence. HN folks can probably rattle off hundreds of great ideas and innovations from small companies that were bought -- ideas and innovations which just disappeared or were turned into milquetoast. The internet brings both rather universal self-publishing and the network effect.
- indigo0086 3y ago>Mass layoffs are tearing through US media. To preserve a functioning media ecosystem, we need three things: immediate aid to struggling journalists, public subsidies to smaller news outlets, and eventually industry transformation into a publicly funded system. Could she work harder to undermine her own point with this whiny intro
- incomingpain 3y ago>Mass layoffs are tearing through US media. I dont agree with the assumed premise. Article provides some examples but at best it's irrelevant lay offs. Failing media outlets are always going to exist. >To preserve a functioning media ecosystem, we need three things: immediate aid to struggling journalists You can look to us in Canada. The government gives the media money, the political interference continued to ramp up until a crisis. The government has absolutely no business funding the media.
- JohnDeHope 3y ago> Mass layoffs are tearing through US media. To preserve a functioning media ecosystem, we need three things: immediate aid to struggling journalists, public subsidies to smaller news outlets, and eventually industry transformation into a publicly funded system. People don't seem to want what we're selling. So the government should tax them, then give us the money to continue providing what they've demonstrated they don't want. Did I get that right?
- goalieca 3y agoIn Canada we’re trying that and now we have major media dependant on a government paycheque and specifically depending on a certain political party because the other wants to get rid of it. Now you should evaluate our freedom of press and potential bias.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- panarky 3y agoIf you think your media is biased, you should see the kind of bias that comes from media funded only by unregulated capital markets.
- simonblack 3y agoPeople will only outlay their limited cash on things that seem to 'have value'. Do the products of the modern media companies have any 'value'? IIRC there was a US president whose name I have forgotten who often complained about media companies producing very little but 'Fake News'. Fake News has no 'value' at all. Those companies deserve to die.