[the_rosentotter]

I think the big papers (New York Times, Washington Post) have always been the voice of the establishment. I remember reading their editorials broadly condemning the labor movement while it was fighting for basic rights (and being slaughtered by public and privatized law enforcement) in the middle of the 19th century. Perhaps at times more humanist than others, but nevertheless.

I also think it is really obvious that it would be this way. There is hardly any money in selling newspapers, even well before the internet completely obliterated that business. But shaping public opinion? That is valuable beyond measure, for the right (moneyed) interest groups.

[pm90]

Washington Post seems to be a lot better about being a neutral outlet with quality journalism. Although... being owned by Bezos makes me wonder how long they can remain that way.

[acct1771]

$600m for AWS.

[hopler]

How is the new york times staff or owners profiting from supporting those moneyed interests?

[the_rosentotter]

I don't know that the editors and writers profit directly, beyond their salaries. More like the companies are run at a loss in order to control the conversation. Of course seats are filled with people that push the line the owners prefer.

[cwkoss]

Ad buys.

[radicaldreamer]

And access.

[fumar]

Targeted ad buys to the highest bidder.

[fmajid]

The owners like to think of themselves as the decision-making elite of the country, and the White House flatters that delusion by giving them illusion of being consulted. This creates sympathy for the WH's views at the top of the NYT, and that attitude percolates implicitly to the editors.

[sDlEzAtyoNAz]

By having a financial stake in things other than the paper.