[Spivak]

Yes they do! There isn’t that much difference nowadays between cable news and edgy YT personalities. Old guard media has realized that they can’t compete with social media so they’re borrowing all the plays.

There is news in the newspaper and in the archives of news sites but what’s front and center is outrage bait opinion pieces from large personalities.

[balls187]

Cable News was theater well before the rise of Social Media.

Social Media didn't invent "sex* sells."

*Sex being the place holder for something that is controversial.

[rhacker]

So true.

My brother used to watch Fox News (ehh..) but I mostly avoided it just cause. Anyway I sat down to watch one day and everything had scantily clad women no matter what they were discussing. A lot of the time it was about a strip club that got permits in a city somewhere in small town usa. And the segment would basically focus on dancers (no nudity in the shots) but basically everything BUT an ad for going to said strip club, even though the words themselves was "this is ruining America" - the camera angles and everything was butts, boobs and legs.

Anyway that aside. One thing that social media has over cable news is - it's cable not everyone has it, while the internet is pretty much everywhere now.

[pjc50]

The Daily Mail "sidebar of shame" is also a spectacular example of this. They can simultaneously slut-shame celebrities while also advertising where you can buy the outfit in the photo.

Fox News notoriously has a preference for blondes: https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2017/feb/20/women-fox-ne...

[Rule35]

> "'I'm strictly dickly … I love sex and I love men'. Former presidential candidate's daughter Meghan McCain opens up for Playboy interview." -- Quoted in the Daily Mail

I welcome a service that tells me which celebrities are hollow. I call it "news", give it a try.

Telling you where to buy their clothes is part of the schtick - "Paul is [an idiot], dressed in Gucci pants - $35.000 at ..."