4 ms·
The less prestige and readership the paper has, the less influence it has.
by Sabinus 2y ago
The less prestige and readership the paper has, the less influence it has.
- chucke1992 2y agotraditional media is already losing the influence to be honest. Even big networks like CNN or Fox News are basically dying. In the era of tiktok, twitter, podcasters and other services - traditional media is just too boring source of news. I would say that even the traditional search will die sooner or later.
- wkat4242 2y agoI think CNN and especially Fox are already way too sensationalist. I prefer a good writeup like the guardian does. Not every fart needs to be "BREAKING NEWS". I'm sure some people crave the hollow mindless screaming of random influencers but there's still mindful people out there.
- chucke1992 2y agothey are sensationalist because they are trying to imitate the discourse like on TikTok or Twitter - some short sentence that makes people pay attention while reading the headline. It is like "click on us!!!" And it is getting worse because media has to compete with online media. > I'm sure some people crave the hollow mindless screaming of random influencers but there's still mindful people out there. For sure, there are event podcasts with cool and calm discourse too. There are options.
- Freestyler_3 2y agoI think having a balanced news nowadays is more prestige than a paper that chases a one sided view on politics.
- 535188B17C93743 2y ago[flagged]
- username135 2y agoThere was a time that all news was required to be fair and balanced. See the fairness doctrine. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_doctrine https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_doctrine
- jfengel 2y agoThe fairness doctrine only ever applied to broadcast TV and radio. It was considered constitutional on the grounds that these were limited public resources. It never applied to newspapers, cable TV, or web sites, which were far less limited. It was never really the reason that news broadcasts aimed for fairness. They aimed for fairness because they were journalists, and they considered it a point of pride to be accurate and informative. The broadcast networks (including Fox affiliates) still aim for that, despite the end of the fairness doctrine. But their markets have been eaten into by cable networks, some of which were explicitly founded as propaganda machines and discovered that people preferred it as entertainment.
- Sabinus 2y agoThat depends on what you mean by 'having a balanced news'. Should reporting present both sides in the same light if the facts support one side more? Does a presidential endorsement from the editorial section of a newspaper corrupt the impartiality of the reporting section of the newspaper?
- weatherlite 2y ago> Does a presidential endorsement from the editorial section of a newspaper corrupt the impartiality of the reporting section of the newspaper? It probably does. If your editor, boss and all your colleagues support candidate X and you come up with a story that hurts candidate X, will you really get to publish it? Will you even try to come up with such a story? I'm not saying it's impossible to get this right, but under the current climate I don't think its possible.
- eddd-ddde 2y agoWhy does a news paper need influence to being with?