Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 522749)

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Those have all been replaced by the internet news aggregators.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

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 522694)

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.

Originally Posted by Icky Thump (Post 522704)

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

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 522750)

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

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 522751)

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.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 522749)

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

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 522753)

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.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 522758)

Um, whatever.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 522761)

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

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 522760)

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

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 522763)

sometimes, though, a racist is just a racist.

Originally Posted by LessinSF (Post 522764)

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?

Originally Posted by LessinSF (Post 522764)

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?