[starfezzy]

Implying any publication with a financier/owner and an editorial staff doesn't always and necessarily present the views of those who control it...?

Was anyone genuinely under th delusion that it was any different when it was Bezos' benefit to placate the progressives?

[crazygringo]

> doesn't always and necessarily present the views of those who control it...?

Of course it doesn't.

> Was anyone genuinely under th delusion that it was any different

It wasn't a delusion, it was.

It's generally been the policy of editorial pages to print a diverse set of opinions pieces that contradict each other. And that aren't under control of the owner, look up the term "editorial independence".

This isn't a question of being "under a delusion", it's simply how American newspapers have traditionally operated because it was good for business.

Media owners have generally prioritized making money, not "presenting their views".

[starfezzy]

Imagine believing that, not only after living past age 5 where you start to develop a complex model of reality beyond "what seems simple and straightforward is true", but after growing into full adulthood and recognizing what is widely known to be profitable in "news"—which is selling a narrative to a target audience.

This is so elementary that anyone can see it. It's commonly mentioned in precisely the mainstream "respectable" publications like WaPo.

There's almost certainly industry jargon and marketing models for it, and technical terminology and decades of documentation about it, if I were to ask any LLM what the words and concepts are.