[fsociety999]

I don’t think there is much doubt that traditional media companies put profits over reporting and facts. It is difficult to critique war when defense contractors buy up much of your ad space. Likewise, it is difficult to critique big pharma when pharmaceutical companies buy up many of your ads, etc.

The problem with the proposal to make the news publicly funded is that that just replaces one set of incentives with another. If governments dictate when media outlets receive funding and how much, then it is unlikely that said media companies will be overly critical of the government. This same kind of thing has started to creep into other parts of society like the public education system where standardized test scores are often considered more important than a well-rounded education.

Personally, this is why I like the business model of places like Substack where you can find specific journalists you trust to actually hold people in power accountable and can support them directly. Finding truly unbiased information these days is not easy.

Speaking of Substack, I highly recommend this three part series about conflicts of interest and media companies:

- https://rebeccastrong.substack.com/p/big-media-big-conflicts...

- https://rebeccastrong.substack.com/p/the-monopoly-on-your-mi...

- https://rebeccastrong.substack.com/p/the-monopoly-on-your-mi...

[eduction]

Defense contractors don’t buy ad space in regular media outlets. In Aviation Week and maybe Foreign Policy and some trade journals, sure. When was the last time you saw an ad for an F-35 on nytimes.com? Why would they advertise defense systems there?

Anyway I actually agree that traditional media fails to put the truth first. But the reasons are way more complicated than your post indicates. Raytheon is not buying ads in the Condé Nast magazines, the WSJ, CNN etc.

There are a number of reasons these media orgs fail the truth. Certainly money is part of it. But I think the biggest single reason is how they source their stories. It is rooted in history and inertia and laziness and a certain awe of power. They are very comfortable talking to institutions and way less comfortable dealing with individual actors. Workers, dissidents, whistleblowers, the disgruntled, call them what you will. Finding a real human experience is so much harder than being spoon fed by people paid to make you swallow easy truths.

I mean, it’s 1000x easier now than it was 25 years ago. But learning how to listen to and vet that information is still hard, and digging on it is hard, and it’s all incredibly risky. No one ever got fired for printing an Apple statement. No one ever got dragged on Twitter because their corporate PR source got exposed and arrested.

[endominus]

How about amending the statement to "It is difficult to critique a war when your access to extremely lucrative war coverage is determined by your relationship with the Department of Defense"?

[yucky]

>Defense contractors don’t buy ad space in regular media outlets. In Aviation Week and maybe Foreign Policy and some trade journals, sure. When was the last time you saw an ad for an F-35 on nytimes.com? Why would they advertise defense systems there?

When you're one of the only companies in the world that makes something like the F-35, you don't need to advertise the F-35, you need to advertise the need for the F-35. NYTimes is great for that..

[Retric]

I have seen lots of pro F-35 and defense contractor advertising on busses etc not just trade journals.

I can’t find references to the US advertising campaigns, but here’s some that ran in Canada. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/f-35-ads-on-oc-transpo...

[eduction]

Sure on the sides of buses in Ottawa during “Ottawa's Cansec, the largest defence trade show in Canada.”

And I’ve seen blogs writing about f35s and I have no doubt defense contractors are tied to that somehow, whether through ads or putting the journalist in a simulator or whatever.

But when CNN puts a pro f35 ex general slash Lockheed board member on air, or the nytimes writes a story suggesting Taiwan needs more advanced jets, the reporter or producer isn’t being pushed to help sell ads. They are making a choice that’s easier and more logical for them professionally given incentive structures that go way beyond ads.

[Godel_unicode]

And in sports broadcasts and on all the radio stations (including NPR) and on a ton of tech news blogs and in all the major US newspapers…

You’re not advertising Northrop Grumman or Lockheed or the F35 like the new iPhone, you’re advertising them like coke. If you live in the DC area their ads are everywhere.

[throwaway6734]

It also costs a lot of money. So many people love to complain about the news but refuse to pay a dollar a day for it

[origin_path]

Yes, that's a big part of it. That is in turn due to the differing approaches to the press in public and private sectors, which creates a self-reinforcing feedback loop.

Lack of trust in media is split strongly along partisan lines, at least in the USA. This is IMHO a result of the heavily reliance of the media on public sector / government / university / NGO employees as a source of quotes. Journalists like to present themselves as neutral voices but want their stories to sound informed, so almost every story must come with a quote from someone. Public sector orgs rarely punish people for speaking to journalists and often actively encourage it, as long as they promote the organization's goals and ideologies. Even when theoretically forbidden e.g. intelligence, military, what you see is a massive culture of leaks and off-the-record briefings that's tolerated and encouraged from the top. Universities meanwhile are pretty much quote factories for the press, with the result that in the media "expertise" is now synonymous with academia - journalists love the fact that academics are perceived as independent from their host institutions, can turn up on the phone or in a studio at the drop of a hat and there's an unlimited number of them to pick from.

By contrast in the private sector it's standard for communication with journalists of any form to be forbidden and penalized with the sack, regardless of the message being given. Employees are not perceived as independent of their institution, even when talking off the record or as an individual. It may not even be easy to find the right person to talk to.

This leads to a self-reinforcing problem in which journalists get repeatedly exposed to the ways of thinking found in the largest public sector organizations that have a well funded press operation, without getting any balance from other areas of society, making them sympathetic to those ways, which in turn discourages other kinds of people from talking to them because they correctly perceive the journalists as biased. The journalists shift ever further towards the views of the people who talk to them until they basically become arms of the state. As time passes this feedback loop has become so extreme that the media aren't content to merely repeat whatever public sector workers tell them, but actively persecute anyone who tells them anything in disagreement. The bias becomes ever more visible and trust collapses.

There doesn't seem to be any easy way to break this feedback loop. You can't tackle it from the supply or demand side. Trying to restrict who can talk to the press is probably hard or impossible, especially in the USA with the First Amendment. Trying to increase the supply of people outside the public sector willing to talk to journalists, also hard. The most obvious way forward is to support and encourage a different style of journalism that doesn't try to present a fake view-from-above, in which bias is injected via quotes from hand-picked pseudo-experts, but rather a more analytical and data oriented form of news in which the only allowed quotes are things people said to other people, in public. This is the style of journalism found on Substack.

[eduction]

>The most obvious way forward is to support and encourage a different style of journalism that doesn't try to present a fake view-from-above, in which bias is injected via quotes from hand-picked pseudo-experts, but rather a more analytical and data oriented form of news in which the only allowed quotes are things people said to other people, in public. This is the style of journalism found on Substack.

Your whole comment blew my mind but this part at the end is especially fascinating. Wow.

I would love to see more of that approach you outline. At the same time, don't you think any journalists who goes that route will get slammed for not having the requisite expertise? Or maybe the data will "speak for itself."

[origin_path]

They will certainly get slammed as such by other journalists, but whether readers care or not is an open question. There are some very successful writers on Substack who are successfully monetizing blogging-oriented journalism, that rejects the classical style in favor of "here's what I think and my biases, here's facts and data to back it up". It works well for analysis and data journalism, perhaps less so for original reporting of the "earthquake in Indonesia" type.

[kalleboo]

> If governments dictate when media outlets receive funding and how much, then it is unlikely that said media companies will be overly critical of the government

Often public broadcasters are set up where their funding doesn't come from taxes but from a license fee that they collect themselves.

What I've seen in these countries is that public broadcasters still have a bias (due to journalists generally coming from the same background/education/maybe even geography) but it's not strictly aligned with whoever is currently in the government.

[SamoyedFurFluff]

I worry if I subscribe only to news reporters I think are accurate, Im literally funding my own biases.

[marricks]

Well, no matter what you read, you have to think about what the incentives are. Everything has a bias, especially people who claim to be unbiased. So if you really wanted to be "unbiased" you could at least spread that out.

[foverzar]

My method is to monitor as many diverse sources as possible.

Left, Right, American, European, Russian, Chinese, Indian, Israeli, Ukrainian -- all with their own perspectives, agendas and their own "white lies".

Cross-reference, distill and enjoy the complexity of an objective reality and all the perspectives on it.

[cocacola1]

Then it's a question of holding those specific journalists on Substack accountable.

[refurb]

You hold them accountable by not paying them if you don't like their reporting.

[cocacola1]

I'm not sure that's accurate. Whether or not I like their reporting has no bearing on whether their reporting is true or accurate, which is what I need.

[refurb]

The only way to do that is for you to vet them. And the best way to vet is to read all sides of the issue.

Or put your trust in some external organization, which is what you're doing if you accept reported news as fact.

[kelseyfrog]

That's why I only subscribe to journalists I don't like.

[jolux]

But don't you like reading things that you think are true? How do you put one before the other fully?

[Cederfjard]

The point is that what you think is true might not necessarily be true. So only reading things you like and believe to be accurate could mean you’re getting the truth, but it could also mean you’re getting a feedback loop of misinformation and indoctrination.

[cocacola1]

No clue. I try not to have a fixed opinion on news stories as they come out, but do try to read books, articles, and news about particular topics and the history leading up to them. Then, sometimes, that coalesces into an actual, informed opinion – but on a few topics.

[sangnoir]

> You hold them accountable by not paying them if you don't like their reporting.

This means the journalists are now beholden to the class of people who pay substackers; I suspect the feedback loop is much tighter (lose subscribers soon after publishing an article that speaks truth-to-the-new-power). This also encourages echo-chambers - writers will learn to know what their readers like and will stick to it: their income literally depends on it!

[refurb]

How is that different than what happens with major papers now?

At least the choice is the reader’s, the feedback is immediate and the start-up costs low.

[sangnoir]

We are in violent agreement - only that I think society is worse-off for the tighter coupling between readers biases and the echo-chambers they obtain news.

[ceejayoz]

So "money comes before mission" again?

[honkler]

yeah but it's your money, as opposed to defense contractors money

[ceejayoz]

I don't see that that matters. In either case, continuing operations means writing stuff your funders want to see. Piss them off, even if what you're saying is truthful, well written, etc., and your publication isn't long for the world.

[somenameforme]

People, in general, want what's good for people, in general. Defense contractors want what's good for defense contractors. The two in many, if not the majority, of cases are not aligned. "Defense" contractors benefit from war while society, in the vast majority of cases, loses. Of course that's where the media comes into play.

Invading Iraq on nonexistent evidence was actually 'saving the world from the imminent threat of an unhinged dictator actively developing WMD with the intent of using them, alongside endless irrefutable evidence.' The Iraq War, and especially the following two articles, played a major role in developing my worldview. I still return to read them on occasion. This is why you don't want media backed by the war machine:

Washington Post - "Irrefutable" : https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2003/02/06/i...

NYTimes - "Irrefutable and Undeniable" : https://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/06/opinion/irrefutable-and-u...

[Georgelemental]

Journalism, to be useful to society, must be read. Pissing your readers off too badly is counterproductive to informing them, even if they don't pay your salary.

[harpiaharpyja]

Well it could matter, in this hypothetical case where the public is directly funding journalists, because the public is not homogenous. I think there is a possible world where an ecosystem of journalism could develop.

So yes, each individual would be beholden to their audience. But it would be much healthier than everyone being beholden to the much smaller collection of groups who pull the strings of influence in our present situation.

[solatic]

> If governments dictate when media outlets receive funding and how much, then it is unlikely that said media companies will be overly critical of the government.

That's why you need both. You need private journalism to serve as a check on government, and public journalism to serve as a check on private interests. Forbid political advertising in private papers, and forbid private journalists from working for government after leaving private media; forbid corporate advertising in public papers, and forbid public journalists from working for corporate interests after leaving public media.

[kshahkshah]

I don’t see how substack solves audience capture

[tootie]

When have defense contractors ever bought ad space in national news? That seems like wasted ad dollars targeting a lot of people who aren't in the market to buy arms.

[ceejayoz]

Honestly, I've gotten promoted ads on Twitter for Lockheed-Martin and Boeing's military hardware. No idea why, they must be targeting fairly broadly.

They definitely advertise in all sorts of media, especially stuff heavily read in Washington. https://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/20/us/nation-challenged-sale...

> James Fetig, a Lockheed spokesman, said that Lockheed resumed running print ads for its own Joint Strike Fighter model in The Washington Post and trade publications on Monday, and only after it saw that Boeing was pressing ahead with radio and print ads.

[TOMDM]

Three theories,

One, your ad profile is similar to people who may be in positions to make decisions about weapon spending.

Two, maybe the "look at this cool tech" ads are meant to attract talent to build them, not people to buy them.

Three they cast a wide net to influence voting decisions of Americans in regards to military spending.

[tootie]

Leave it to HN to give the most technical answers that miss the point. Newspapers don't get revenue from Twitter ads. Twitter ads and any network ads are targeted based on algorithms and the editors won't even know until the story is published. They can direct sell ads but I seriously doubt any have ever sold ads to defense companies. Nor do newspapers even get most of their revenue from ads anymore, it's subscribers. Hell even the Fox cable channel doesn't need advertisers since they get their money from cable carriage fees. You have to connect way too many dots to say a sponsor is going to be able to bury critical news stories.

[notjulianjaynes]

I've noticed the podcast Intelligence Matters, all the ads are literally for like the newest Lockheed Martin fighter jet. Surely some of the audience are decision makers about buying those jets, but it can't be the majority of listeners. Granted the host is former deputy director of the CIA, but the content is news of national interest..

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/intelligence-matters-a-cbs-news...

[m348e912]

Cynical me thinks the ad spending is not specially for viewers, but rather to gain favor and influence on coverage, especially when it comes to justification for conflict.

[phonescreen_man]

They are not advertising to sell you weapons. They advertise to get their brand name inside your head associated with positive things.

[thrown_22]

http://honesthistory.net.au/wp/canberra-airport-advertising/

Not sure about airport in the US but this is what you used to see when getting into the Australian capital from the airport.

[SanjayMehta]

I see ads from Boeing regularly on my twitter feed.

[PragmaticPulp]

> I see ads from Boeing regularly on my twitter feed.

Me too, but Twitter leans heavily toward people who are anti-war. It doesn't really support the parent comments' claims of journalistic conflicts.

[Godel_unicode]

All the time. Especially sports and NPR, weirdly.

[warbler73]

GE owned NBC from 1986 to 2013.

[Timwi]

> it is unlikely that said media companies will be overly critical of the government.

The (publicly funded) BBC is plenty critical of the British government. The same is true of ARD in Germany.

[djbebs]

Oh please, the BBC is a mouthpiece of the British state

[origin_path]

The BBC isn't critical of the government, it's critical of the Tories. That's not quite the same thing.

[unity1001]

> If governments dictate when media outlets receive funding and how much

Parliaments decide how and how much funding media outlets receive. Not governments. And the people elect the members of parliaments. You make it so that every outlet that reaches over a certain threshold of viewers gets funding proportionate to the share of viewers it has. Just like public election funding and how parties receive funding based on their vote shares.

[bruce511]

I didn't down-vote you, but your argument has holes.

Yes, people elect the govt, but they don't get to oversee every decision. So most people simply vote along part lines, because when you have a choice of 2, party affiliation is the only criteria that matters. And those people are only on the ballot in the first place because they are overwhelmingly party loyal.

So then fundamentally media funding would be based on viewer numbers, not quality. I'm not sure that incentivising a pure head-count would lead to better quality. Facebook has fantastic viewer numbers, but is tgst the standard of journalism we aspire to?

A better argument _against_ govt funding is that the media is there to hold power to account, which would seem to be impossible for the media to do if power was paying the bills.

[unity1001]

> So most people simply vote along part lines

Im assuming that you are talking about the Angloamerican political context because your arguments seem to be ones which people who are used to only that context make.

In the majority of the world, there arent 'party lines'. There are party PROGRAMS. Each party publicizes their program if they get elected, and ask for votes based on the program. If a coalition government is founded, the program of the government is created by negotiations in between the member parties by combining their programs based on their electoral weights. It works very well.

The same party programs would decide how to distribute the public funding, and based on what criteria.

> And those people are only on the ballot in the first place because they are overwhelmingly party loyal.

It doesn't work like that outside the US or the UK where FPTP is used. A large swath of parties in Europe use internal elections in which the leadership is elected based on their own program, just like how a party is elected to the government based on its program.

> So then fundamentally media funding would be based on viewer numbers, not quality. I'm not sure that incentivising a pure head-count would lead to better quality. Facebook has fantastic viewer numbers, but is tgst the standard of journalism we aspire to?

Facebook does not classify itself as a news organization. If it does, it will have to oblige by the journalism regulations in those countries. The US has practically none, obviously, so it wouldnt make a difference. But for the rest of the world that isnt a problem.

> A better argument _against_ govt funding is that the media is there to hold power to account, which would seem to be impossible for the media to do if power was paying the bills

That's the case with private media as of this moment.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/five-reason...

And that's the UK. And that's the most blatant and unrepentant. The US is phenomenally worse with ~3 corporations consolidating a whopping 90% of the media and news and the people have absolutely no say in it since there is absolutely no alternative that can compete against those due to the capital difference.

[mantas]

> In the majority of the world, there arent 'party lines'. There are party PROGRAMS

Party lines still exist in multi-party systems. Some parties are known to never deliver. Other parties are tiny and won’t ever make it to parliament. There’s next to no chance to find a party which program looks entirely fine AND you can trust the party to deliver. In the end, you just vote along for least worst option. Or strategically against something.

[unity1001]

> Party lines still exist in multi-party systems

Ideologies exist. Not 'lines'.

> Some parties are known to never deliver.

No party which consistently does not deliver gets elected in a proportional representation system.

> Other parties are tiny and won’t ever make it to parliament

10 or more parties in a parliament are enough.

> There’s next to no chance to find a party which program looks entirely fine AND you can trust the party to deliver.

Sorry. Thats just nonsense.

> In the end, you just vote along for least worst option

You are literally projecting the Angloamerican system to entire world and claiming that is the norm. It isn't. That's one mistake of the people who live in such FPTP systems. Thinking that 'everywhere is the same'.