|
|
|
|
|
by nullc
2330 days ago
|
|
I don't know why you think "media companies" hate anything. I think that they're just doing whatever makes the most money. Printing hardly researched often untrue shock-garabage makes a lot of money. It gets traffic from people who agree with it and traffic from people who think it's awful. Even lying outright-- there are no consequences and it's cheap to produce. If anyone cares the controversy just means even more traffic. No great conspiracy is required. Modern consumption patterns have made essentially tabloid grade 'journalism' more profitable than it was while making traditional modes of journalism less profitable. If the commercial operations weren't producing junk at scale they'd probably be put out of business by grass roots tabloid-content production. I'm sure there are plenty of journalists who would like to do better, but wishes doesn't put food on the table. They produce what earns money or they find another line of work. We get what we incentivize. |
|
The idea of news outlets presenting unvarnished truth without slant or bias is a fantasy world that never existed. In fact, while the technology has changed, the journalism of today is much more reliable and objective than that of one and two hundred years ago.