Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The traditional print media is meaningless. When has anyone read the local paper outside a big city? Does Miami even have a paper? Raleigh? Phoenix?

Those have all been replaced by the internet news aggregators.

The only print media left is the NYTimes, WaPo, WSJ, and a few others with national audiences, like maybe the LA Times or Boston Globe.

I never read the Philly Inquirer. And I don't think anyone else does.



That's true, except that CNN is not a center to center right network. It's left leaning "mostly noise." https://www.adfontesmedia.com/the-ch...ion/#iLightbox[gallery105]/0



Most of the sources that lean left or right don't do so to an extreme.



The writing is what we're discussing. We're not reading the owner's work. We're reading what the journalist is writing:

https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...t-coast-215048

https://www.investors.com/politics/e...as-left-study/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...=.5c95ee140285

I don't normally reply to the same post twice, but I did want to thank you for continuing to expose the mental laxity in Ty's posts. With your efforts I know we are close to the day that Plated and Slave will soon return and depose Ty from the throne he holds on this Board allowing him to strangle all dissent.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

It's also because of the fundamental economics of print. Printing presses are expensive. Print media is a business with relatively high fixed costs and relatively low marginal costs. Most newspaper markets tend to be highly concentrated, often with only one or two newspapers. Most people buy newspapers for local news. For example, for decades San Francisco had the Chronicle and the Examiner, and then the Examiner couldn't keep up and there is now only one paper in town. If you are running a newspaper in this context, then the journalistic imperative is centrist -- try to appeal to everybody, so as not to lose any readers and sell as many advertisements as you can. If you win that space, no one will threaten your franchise. So the news coverage is centrist and inoffensive. Most publishers are wealthy and skew conservative, so the editorial pages of most newspapers skew conservative, but usually not so much as might lose readers and advertisers. We have very few national newspapers, because people buy paper's for local news. The NYT is one, because it's the country's biggest city and can support better coverage. The WSJ is another, because it caters to business news. The WaPo has become one recently, but it has always been primarily the local newspaper for the capital -- no one subscribed to it outside DC until the internet made that possible. Traditional print journalism evolved within this paradigm.



Traditional TV news was much like traditional print, for similar reasons. It's expensive to run TV stations and the profit is high on the margins. Traditional TV networks all wanted mass audiences. Cable started changing this in TV before the internet changed it for newspapers.



There is an interesting conversation to be had about the way the press covers politics. And then there's right-wing grievance and cynical working off the refs.

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.

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. 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.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

No the other 8 people who don't watch it make sure to announce it every five minutes.

I've watched five minutes of the "Shame" episode 30 or 40 times. Does that count as being a fan?

I actually really liked the show. It's just when you get behind you feel overwhelmed. You let it get too far and then one day you realize you just don't have the time.

It's a Chapin's "Cat's in the Cradle" sort of situation. I regret it deeply... but what am going to do? I had my chance and missed it, and now all I have is regret.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Uncharacteristic typo- he tests labs or runs the only testing lab? And what do they test in a state where it is legal?

Per someone I heard interviewed as a "sommelier" type person for legal weed (Washington, I think), she said all of the stuff they sell is tested and labeled for its chemical properties. She asserted that someone who knows their stuff should be able to characterize the properties of the product based on the analysis.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

A neighbor and friend was in a WaPo article- she is a librarian who scheduled a drag queen story hour, and that attracted hate groups- girl got a color shot in the Sunday Edition a few weeks backs. Hubby drove all around here trying to buy a hard copy- no luck. I called a lobbyist friend to FedEx me one- we are at the point where obtaining a hard copy of WaPo requires a Metro DC address.

Jesus, I can get them more easily than the Times sometimes. It's a pretty decent paper. Bezos has improved it considerably by pumping cash into it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The writing is what we're discussing. We're not reading the owner's work. We're reading what the journalist is writing.

How odd that rich people would buy media outlets and then exercise no control (editors, management, anything) over what those outlets produce. All of those corporate interests -- they just let a bunch of left-leaning journalists write whatever they want, even though it runs against their interests and views. Strange.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

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.

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.

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.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Um, whatever.

we already have a Thurgreed, but thanks for trying.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Seems like we don't ever talk about race here, but this interview was interesting.

[Hank Chinaski]

Soooooo, my little suburb’s NextDoor, someone posted a poll, would you vote 3rd party in 2020? 33% said yes. NWTAF?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Soooooo, my little suburb’s NextDoor, someone posted a poll, would you vote 3rd party in 2020? 33% said yes. NWTAF?

You've got some work ahead of you, Hank.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Seems like we don't ever talk about race here, but this interview was interesting.

sometimes, though, a racist is just a racist.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

sometimes, though, a racist is just a racist.

So, when inundated with people claiming whatever based on their various non-white, non-LGBTQ($TUGN, non-whatever, it is racist to have an "I Have My Own Identity" response?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

So, when inundated with people claiming whatever based on their various non-white, non-LGBTQ($TUGN, non-whatever, it is racist to have an "I Have My Own Identity" response?

No, I didn't say that. But you knew that.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

So, when inundated with people claiming whatever based on their various non-white, non-LGBTQ($TUGN, non-whatever, it is racist to have an "I Have My Own Identity" response?

No opinion, but it is too soon to forgive Germany and move there.