Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
This is an interesting deus ex machina. We'll escape discussion of the biases of journalists by declaring that, economically, a paper must be centrist to survive.
This would assume papers are run by rational economic actors and journalists within them are controlled by the business people who run them. This turns the old rule that news should not be shaded to fit what corporate desires on its ear. (There have been just a few award winning movies about this friction.)
The media landscape has shifted considerably since the days of Cronkite. We have more of a British media, where different outlets provide more overt silos to their readers. You can blame Fox. You can blame those who've tried to counter Fox by moving hard left.
|
I describe economic incentives and you call them a
deus ex machine? Um, whatever.
Quote:
|
The news channel I'd go to, and still go to, when I watch some cable news (usually only when there's some huge event or national emergency) is CNN. CNN has gone quite batshit crazy since Trump was elected. My suspicion is they are simply giving as they receive, and this battle between them and Trump is good for ratings. Which it is. They've made a lot more money since Trump has been in office.
|
They want to be in the middle, and try to air both sides, which often means airing people like Corey Lewandowski as commentators.
Quote:
|
And Fox has made a shit ton of money by running hard right since it was established. So if your argument is that centrism pays in cable news, no -- you're simply wrong.
|
No, my argument was that centrism was the model in the days of broadcast news when there were few outlets. Cable opened the doors to serving niche markets, like HGTV, Fox Soccer Channel, and Fox News.
