4 ms·

> The media have comprehensively failed us. Good. The author didn’t make the mistake of calling it the “news”. I have for a long time felt that there is nuanc

> The media have comprehensively failed us. Good. The author didn’t make the mistake of calling it the “news”. I have for a long time felt that there is nuance about our “press” that doesn’t have good words in the public dialog. I struggle to articulate it myself. Our modern “free press” is only free in that government is mostly not censoring it. But the press of today is a for profit endeavour. So it is not free to waste time “speaking truth” or something like that. It is incentivized to be whatever it takes to grab and keep eyeballs. While there are people/institutions who publish things purely for information they feel is important, this is largely drowned out by the “trying to make money” crowd. So our supposedly “free press”, while possibly free of despotic controls, is still a slave to the feedback loop of economics. Very much unfree. A sort of irony.

topaz0 1y ago
> to grab and keep eyeballs yes, but also to manufacture consent for the priorities of the rich and powerful
- hexbin010 1y ago
  Its first and foremost purpose
- pessimizer 1y ago
  People conveniently leave this out a lot. Outlets like The Guardian have lost massive amounts of money every year for decades. They are supported by wealthy people who want to see their agendas be influential. So the quest is for eyeballs, but not for cash. They're totally willing to throw away the pennies* that they could get from that if the alternative is not to get the ideas they want to push into circulation, which often boosts their other business interests. It's not even possible to make money from journalism. Every outlet is a money sink for someone, you should just wonder if that person has a moral reason for throwing away the cash or another goal. [*] is there any news outlet that beats alpha other than the NYT? Maybe the WSJ?
  - tpolzer 1y ago
    Unlike opaquely financed and privately owned media companies, the Guardian is actually relatively clear and open in how it is financed and set up in a way to try to make them as independent as possible (see for example the Scott Trust's annual report https://uploads.guim.co.uk/2025/09/11/The_Scott_Trust_Limited_2024_25.pdf https://uploads.guim.co.uk/2025/09/11/The_Scott_Trust_Limite...). That's not to say that they don't run their fair share of gossip/clickbait... but show me an online medium that does not.
lubujackson 1y ago
Worth noting this is far from a modern problem. Google "yellow journalism".
simonw 1y ago
"But the press of today is a for profit endeavour." It is worth paying attention to the significant rise in prominence of non-profit newsrooms, particularly in the USA. Some notable examples: The Baltimore Banner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Baltimore_Banner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Baltimore_Banner Founded: 2022 ProPublica https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProPublica https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProPublica Founded: 2007 The Texas Tribune https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Texas_Tribune https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Texas_Tribune Founded: 2009 The Marshall Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Marshall_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Marshall_Project Founded: 2014 I'm particularly excited about the Baltimore Banner, who are only a few years old but are earning sizable subscription revenue now (it's healthy for them not to be too dependent on donors).
- BeetleB 1y ago
  I didn't realize Pro Publica is that "new". I've been following them for almost as long. They are fantastic.
  - Forgeties79 1y ago
    Definitely a template. I can’t think of a single major issue I’ve had with anything they’ve put out. I’m sure something exists, I haven’t read literally everything they’ve put out stall, but I have been very impressed with everything I have seen.
- rootusrootus 1y ago
  I would like to see more information like this, thanks for sharing. Though at least one of those examples has a red flag for me - The Baltimore Banner gets a non-trivial amount revenue from advertising. For me personally, I feel like advertising is directly at odds with quality journalism. I would also be interested to hear about how older small and alternate news sources compare to these newer ones. To use an example I'm familiar with, Willamette Week in Portland has a reputation of being halfway decent. Though to be fair, it also has advertising, and does not even have subscriptions since 1984.
Aunche 1y ago
Blaming society for the poor state of journalism is tempting but ignores that the root of the problem lies from within. Financial institutions and other journalists demand information dense journalism to do their jobs and have no problem paying for it, so this is what they receive. Most regular people view news as a form of entertainment and have no problem with sacrificing their attention, and this is what they receive.
LeifCarrotson 1y ago
For-profit media is definitely a problem, but Jeff Bezos didn't buy the Washington Post and Elon Musk didn't buy Twitter because they thought they were more profitable than any other investments they could have made. I believe they did it because they wanted the power that owning a media outlet can provide in order to help protect their actually profitable businesses. It certainly helps that they have their own revenue streams so that they're not just money down the drain. If the Post loses $100M per year, but Amazon keeps making Bezos $50B per year, that's fine, probably costs him less than the depreciation on his yachts or jets.
- BurningFrog 1y ago
  Elon was quite clear the he bought Twitter to make it a free speech forum where you could openly discuss things, even from non establishment standpoints. And that's what it's become.
  - oceansky 1y ago
    Except if you post "cisgender" or if you track Elon Musk's jet. Edit: oh, and if you want to block his account from your feed, you can't
  - blipvert 1y ago
    Aww, that’s sweet. Only time I’ve been kicked off Twitter (permanently, no comebacks) was under Elon’s rule.
    - BurningFrog 1y ago
      Do you want to share for what?
      - wredcoll 1y ago
        Are you going to judge whether or not he was using the right kind of speech?
jack_h 1y ago
You’re using multiple definitions of “free” here. One is freedom in the Lockean sense, the other is freedom from the properties and consequences of an emergent system. It’s a bit like saying you are free to choose your own mate and have kids without government involvement but you’re still a slave to natural selection. The concept of the free press does not guarantee that the truth will proliferate, it merely attempts to avoid the problem of the state defining what truth is. It’s an attempt to select the least worst option because no one knows of a perfect solution or even if one exists.
- awesome_dude 1y ago
  People do forget that there are only three known models for funding new/press and they are all susceptible to bias and error. 1. State 2. Profit driven 3. Charity (includes volunteers, billionaire patrons, crowdfunding)
BurningFrog 1y ago
The free press has always been for profit! What's changed is that the profit used to come from advertising. Since everyone read the news, they could charge a lot for ads. Those days are over, and news now bubble up from social media. That kinda works, but it's far from ideal. To me the 2019 "Covington kids" incident showed how broken the media had become. All the prestigious media, from NY Times down, reprinted a viral Twitter thread as front page news without any fact check. The reported "facts" were completely wrong, and even if they had been right, some random kids being rude in a park should never be national news. Bu that's the news world we live in now.
- anonymousiam 1y ago
  Speaking of Twitter, I couldn't help but notice the lack of a Twitter/X icon on the author's blog page. Lots of other social media links are present.
  - edent 1y ago
    Author here. Elon directly screwed over some of my friends. He turned Twitter from an imperfect mess into a shit filled pit of despair. I don't want to encourage anyone to use his services. Hope that clarifies things!
layer8 1y ago
The press has always been for profit, it was never a charity. What I see today is a mix of trying to maximize profits (which is different from merely making a living from it), and it being more difficult nowadays to make money from diligent journalism, mostly due to how the internet works.
socalgal2 1y ago
> But the press of today is a for profit endeavour. For me, the press today is a for influence endeavour. Most journalists have a POV the majority of topics they write about they express that POV with how they discuss the topic. For example, which people they quote, generally only ones that agree with their POV. If they present an a opposing view they always couch it and phrase things to push the reader to discount that view. If they preset a supporting view they phrase it in a way to make it sound trusting and authoritative. To put it more simply, most journalists are trying to change the world to see things their way.
- wredcoll 1y ago
  > To put it more simply, most journalists are trying to change the world to see things their way. This is a good thing. Aside from the bit where it's always been like this anyways, we, as modern humans, don't have the time to evaluate everything from first sources. You can't read every scientic study or the 500 pages of tax documents that were studied to produce a report on someone committing tax fraud. I don't need more "facts", I need useful information I can take action on.
  - socalgal2 1y ago
    And if that info is wrong because inconvenient counter examples are deprecated and ignored?
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

topaz0 1y ago

> to grab and keep eyeballs yes, but also to manufacture consent for the priorities of the rich and powerful

hexbin010 1y ago
Its first and foremost purpose
pessimizer 1y ago
People conveniently leave this out a lot. Outlets like The Guardian have lost massive amounts of money every year for decades. They are supported by wealthy people who want to see their agendas be influential. So the quest is for eyeballs, but not for cash. They're totally willing to throw away the pennies* that they could get from that if the alternative is not to get the ideas they want to push into circulation, which often boosts their other business interests. It's not even possible to make money from journalism. Every outlet is a money sink for someone, you should just wonder if that person has a moral reason for throwing away the cash or another goal. [*] is there any news outlet that beats alpha other than the NYT? Maybe the WSJ?
- tpolzer 1y ago
  Unlike opaquely financed and privately owned media companies, the Guardian is actually relatively clear and open in how it is financed and set up in a way to try to make them as independent as possible (see for example the Scott Trust's annual report https://uploads.guim.co.uk/2025/09/11/The_Scott_Trust_Limited_2024_25.pdf https://uploads.guim.co.uk/2025/09/11/The_Scott_Trust_Limite...). That's not to say that they don't run their fair share of gossip/clickbait... but show me an online medium that does not.

lubujackson 1y ago

Worth noting this is far from a modern problem. Google "yellow journalism".

simonw 1y ago

"But the press of today is a for profit endeavour." It is worth paying attention to the significant rise in prominence of non-profit newsrooms, particularly in the USA. Some notable examples: The Baltimore Banner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Baltimore_Banner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Baltimore_Banner Founded: 2022 ProPublica https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProPublica https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProPublica Founded: 2007 The Texas Tribune https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Texas_Tribune https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Texas_Tribune Founded: 2009 The Marshall Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Marshall_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Marshall_Project Founded: 2014 I'm particularly excited about the Baltimore Banner, who are only a few years old but are earning sizable subscription revenue now (it's healthy for them not to be too dependent on donors).

BeetleB 1y ago
I didn't realize Pro Publica is that "new". I've been following them for almost as long. They are fantastic.
- Forgeties79 1y ago
  Definitely a template. I can’t think of a single major issue I’ve had with anything they’ve put out. I’m sure something exists, I haven’t read literally everything they’ve put out stall, but I have been very impressed with everything I have seen.
rootusrootus 1y ago
I would like to see more information like this, thanks for sharing. Though at least one of those examples has a red flag for me - The Baltimore Banner gets a non-trivial amount revenue from advertising. For me personally, I feel like advertising is directly at odds with quality journalism. I would also be interested to hear about how older small and alternate news sources compare to these newer ones. To use an example I'm familiar with, Willamette Week in Portland has a reputation of being halfway decent. Though to be fair, it also has advertising, and does not even have subscriptions since 1984.

Aunche 1y ago

Blaming society for the poor state of journalism is tempting but ignores that the root of the problem lies from within. Financial institutions and other journalists demand information dense journalism to do their jobs and have no problem paying for it, so this is what they receive. Most regular people view news as a form of entertainment and have no problem with sacrificing their attention, and this is what they receive.

LeifCarrotson 1y ago

For-profit media is definitely a problem, but Jeff Bezos didn't buy the Washington Post and Elon Musk didn't buy Twitter because they thought they were more profitable than any other investments they could have made. I believe they did it because they wanted the power that owning a media outlet can provide in order to help protect their actually profitable businesses. It certainly helps that they have their own revenue streams so that they're not just money down the drain. If the Post loses $100M per year, but Amazon keeps making Bezos $50B per year, that's fine, probably costs him less than the depreciation on his yachts or jets.

BurningFrog 1y ago
Elon was quite clear the he bought Twitter to make it a free speech forum where you could openly discuss things, even from non establishment standpoints. And that's what it's become.
- oceansky 1y ago
  Except if you post "cisgender" or if you track Elon Musk's jet. Edit: oh, and if you want to block his account from your feed, you can't
- blipvert 1y ago
  Aww, that’s sweet. Only time I’ve been kicked off Twitter (permanently, no comebacks) was under Elon’s rule.
  - BurningFrog 1y ago
    Do you want to share for what?
    - wredcoll 1y ago
      Are you going to judge whether or not he was using the right kind of speech?

jack_h 1y ago

You’re using multiple definitions of “free” here. One is freedom in the Lockean sense, the other is freedom from the properties and consequences of an emergent system. It’s a bit like saying you are free to choose your own mate and have kids without government involvement but you’re still a slave to natural selection. The concept of the free press does not guarantee that the truth will proliferate, it merely attempts to avoid the problem of the state defining what truth is. It’s an attempt to select the least worst option because no one knows of a perfect solution or even if one exists.

awesome_dude 1y ago
People do forget that there are only three known models for funding new/press and they are all susceptible to bias and error. 1. State 2. Profit driven 3. Charity (includes volunteers, billionaire patrons, crowdfunding)

BurningFrog 1y ago

The free press has always been for profit! What's changed is that the profit used to come from advertising. Since everyone read the news, they could charge a lot for ads. Those days are over, and news now bubble up from social media. That kinda works, but it's far from ideal. To me the 2019 "Covington kids" incident showed how broken the media had become. All the prestigious media, from NY Times down, reprinted a viral Twitter thread as front page news without any fact check. The reported "facts" were completely wrong, and even if they had been right, some random kids being rude in a park should never be national news. Bu that's the news world we live in now.

anonymousiam 1y ago
Speaking of Twitter, I couldn't help but notice the lack of a Twitter/X icon on the author's blog page. Lots of other social media links are present.
- edent 1y ago
  Author here. Elon directly screwed over some of my friends. He turned Twitter from an imperfect mess into a shit filled pit of despair. I don't want to encourage anyone to use his services. Hope that clarifies things!

layer8 1y ago

The press has always been for profit, it was never a charity. What I see today is a mix of trying to maximize profits (which is different from merely making a living from it), and it being more difficult nowadays to make money from diligent journalism, mostly due to how the internet works.

socalgal2 1y ago

> But the press of today is a for profit endeavour. For me, the press today is a for influence endeavour. Most journalists have a POV the majority of topics they write about they express that POV with how they discuss the topic. For example, which people they quote, generally only ones that agree with their POV. If they present an a opposing view they always couch it and phrase things to push the reader to discount that view. If they preset a supporting view they phrase it in a way to make it sound trusting and authoritative. To put it more simply, most journalists are trying to change the world to see things their way.

wredcoll 1y ago
> To put it more simply, most journalists are trying to change the world to see things their way. This is a good thing. Aside from the bit where it's always been like this anyways, we, as modern humans, don't have the time to evaluate everything from first sources. You can't read every scientic study or the 500 pages of tax documents that were studied to produce a report on someone committing tax fraud. I don't need more "facts", I need useful information I can take action on.
- socalgal2 1y ago
  And if that info is wrong because inconvenient counter examples are deprecated and ignored?

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]