3 ms·

> 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.