[nickelcitymario]

> do you consider this a good or a bad thing? As a representative of your industry I'm curious to hear your thoughts.

I wouldn't presume to speak for my industry, but here are my thoughts and I appreciate being asked the question (as opposed to simply being attacked).

1. 5000 ads seems like too much, but I'm really not sure how we could arrive at what would be considered the right amount. 100? 5? 0? And even if we could, how would that get regulated, exactly? If we restricted it, who would decide who gets to advertise and who doesn't? Some may balk at this, but I feel that would lead to a form of censorship that none of us would appreciate. So the right number seems to be either zero or unlimited.

2. That said, some places have put full on bans on certain types of advertising. I'm ok with that. People seem to like it.

3. Most advertising (there are very few exceptions) fund various types of media. With the exception of state-funded media, advertising is the reason we have TV, radio, newspapers, social media, online news, YouTube, etc. Generally speaking, no one is willing to pay the full cost of the media we all consume. It's paid for by advertising. (You're welcome.) (If anyone brings up Netflix, tell me when exactly they intend to turn a profit and become a sustainable business?)

So is it good or bad? I maintain that, like most things in life, this should be judged on a case by case basis. Blanket judgments don't work.

> Human aspiration is built-in, we don't need help via advertising to desire more from life.

Yes and no. I get it if you don't think advertising contributes a net positive to human aspirations. But do you condemn teachers, preachers, and parents for trying to get people to aspire to greater things? Maybe the assumption is that advertising only promotes things that don't need promoting. I disagree, but I won't argue. But I have a hard time believing that your position is that no one should ever try to persuade anyone of anything because we're born with all the motivation we'll ever need. If that were the case, why are we even having this conversation?

[kaibee]

> 3. Most advertising (there are very few exceptions) fund various types of media. With the exception of state-funded media, advertising is the reason we have TV, radio, newspapers, social media, online news, YouTube, etc. Generally speaking, no one is willing to pay the full cost of the media we all consume. It's paid for by advertising. (You're welcome.) (If anyone brings up Netflix, tell me when exactly they intend to turn a profit and become a sustainable business?)

I would greatly appreciate if advertising stopped funding "news" networks like CNN and Fox News. I think I could live happily in a world where Anderson Cooper isn't making 12 million dollars a year for being a news caster in-between ads for various prescription drugs.

[nickelcitymario]

How should they be funded instead?

I assure you their editorial departments would be overjoyed if you've discovered a new business model that works without advertising.

[kaibee]

> How should they be funded instead?

> I assure you their editorial departments would be overjoyed if you've discovered a new business model that works without advertising.

A radical take: not all businesses currently funded by advertisement should exist.

A less radical take: if the audience feels that CNN/Fox/MSNBC provide a valuable service to them, they will be willing to pay for it directly. If "the people" feel that a news service benefits society as a whole, it can be funded through taxes, like the BBC.

[nickelcitymario]

So in an American context... NPR and PBS exclusively then? Because people have proven for quite a long time that they are not willing to foot the bill.

(I'm from Canada so our equivalent would be CBC and TVO.)

My guess is that if advertising was banned, the news media would become even more reliant on billionaires to keep them going, and I can't imagine that's healthy for a democracy. I know advertisers have impacted editorial decisions as well (especially really big advertisers who threaten to pull their ads), but I think that would be many times worse if a paper or TV station was entirely dependant on one or two people to stay afloat.

[kaibee]

> So in an American context... NPR and PBS exclusively then? Because people have proven for quite a long time that they are not willing to foot the bill.

New York Times, The Young Turks, etc. If people aren't willing to foot the bill, then that's fine. The market-niche will be freed up for another business to take a better and more sustainable approach.

> My guess is that if advertising was banned, the news media would become even more reliant on billionaires to keep them going, and I can't imagine that's healthy for a democracy. I know advertisers have impacted editorial decisions as well (especially really big advertisers who threaten to pull their ads), but I think that would be many times worse if a paper or TV station was entirely dependant on one or two people to stay afloat.

Billionaires are not healthy for a democracy. The fact that the news media has to exploit their credibility with the audience to compete with a few wealthy individuals is a testament to that.

[nickelcitymario]

> If people aren't willing to foot the bill, then that's fine. The market-niche will be freed up for another business to take a better and more sustainable approach.

There's nothing stopping other business models to take hold, unless of course those business models are insufficient to support the operation.

Also, NYT is supported by a $250 million loan from billionaire Carlos Slim.

[sifar]

So you are replacing state benevolence with the advertising industry's benevolence :).

If the news/media organizations cannot survive and profit without either help, then shouldn't they be allowed to wither ? Instead of imposing this garbage on everyone, young ones included. Or do we consider them an essential industry now ?

BTW, that news is important is also a "need" created by advertising, so that, .... they can show more ads :).

[nickelcitymario]

> that news is important is also a "need" created by advertising, so that, .... they can show more ads :).

You don't consider the news to be an essential part of a democracy?

I've said enough about why I believe advertising is a net positive, so I'm not gonna retread that part.

But question the value of "the 5th estate" to society? That's a whole other level.