4 ms·
I don't know if it's fair to say news organizations are using the bombing to gain financially. They are doing their jobs -- which is, providing a service to gat
by aasarava 14y ago
I don't know if it's fair to say news organizations are using the bombing to gain financially. They are doing their jobs -- which is, providing a service to gather and disseminate news. In order to do that service, reporters and editors need to be paid.
You could look at another way: If the service didn't exist, many people would likely not know the news, or the extent of it -- and so might not be compelled to donate or otherwise help out.
- adkatrit 13y agoI'm not implying that they are using the bombing for financial gain, however it is clear that horrific(and great, positive) events correlate with a certain spike in revenue in the news industry. What I am proposing is charity. Suppose event X creates Y dollars in ad revenue from it's initial spike in traffic. This would be a donated percentage of that money. Let's not forget that reputation is a key factor for creating loyal users. If one had to choose between news service A vs news service B, knowing that choosing A has the implication of assisting those in need, people are going to choose A. Call it pre-emptive humanitarian news campaigning.
- aasarava 13y agoExcept that doing so might open up news organizations to claims of bias in their reporting on aid organizations and on how aid money is spent.
- geofffox 13y agoA week's on-scene coverage cost more to mount than the usual news from the studio. Beyond that, live coverage 'bumped' many commercial avails. This was an expensive week, not a profit center.