[RickS]

> There's a meaningful difference between journalists and advertisers.

In the dictionary, sure. In reality, for as long as advertisers are how journalists get paid, that difference is whittling towards nil.

[untog]

That's pretty obviously not true. I didn't see advertisers covering the mass shooting in Las Vegas, Harvey Weinstein or tax reform, to pick just three things from the last year.

[RickS]

I am not saying "journalists only cover what advertisers will cover".

I am saying "journalist's standards are increasingly coming second to the generation of advertising revenue".

Once-reptutable media empires embed Outbrain widgets and generate fad-focused, celebrity-focused clickbait garbage because it makes them money. They are not doing this for Journalism's sake. They are doing it for revenue from advertisers. I understand that this is an ancient phenomenon (PG's "suits back in style" essay comes to mind), but I have observed the scale and shallowness of the phenomenon worsening as the coffers get lighter at the news orgs.

For that reason, I am arguing that the "meaningfulness" of the difference between advertisers and journalists appears to be waning.

[chiefalchemist]

Um. Not really. The media covers that which gets clicks / eyeballs. That gets turned into revenue via advertisers.

When you gather news from enough sources you start to see patterns in what gets a lot of attention, and what doesn't.

Long to short, you're naive if you don't think there's a straight line been the mainstrean news media and advertisers.

Note: The mainstream news media should also not be confused with journalism. The reasons are obvious.