I included the date in the title as I think it important to know when it's written given the sharp rise of partisan news in recent years. Given our current state, I'm very interested in what led...
I included the date in the title as I think it important to know when it's written given the sharp rise of partisan news in recent years.
Given our current state, I'm very interested in what led to the objectivity in journalism during the mid-to-late 20th century and that's why I posted this.
I think that social media's role in this is huge (as do many others) and it seems to push for the exact opposite of what the author posits are the reason for the rise objective journalism in the latter part of the 20th century:
Baldasty contends that commercial factors encouraged many newspapers to become less partisan. The cost of publishing a daily paper, especially in the largest cities, began growing to the point that party subsidies no longer covered operating costs. Even more, the presence of new revenue sources, specifically department stores and other retailers, more than made up for old party subsidies. Yet these new advertisers all but insisted that editors expand their reach, and be less partisan.
Consider that social media and the internet has dramatically lowered the cost to produce and distribute information - so costs as LOW right now, not high. Newspaper outfits that put out print papers are hurting but I don't believe that's true of online-focused outfits but costs are low for alternative "news", blogspam, opinion-disguised as fact, memes, social media posters, etc. The point that I didn't make very well is that all of the non-journalistic news - meaning alternative media that don't hold themselves to traditional journalistic standards - is cheap to produce, much cheaper than real journalism, and that's drowning out fact-based news on social media. Furthermore, advertising on social media is all about hitting niches and so news that caters to specific niches is desirable.
I think that is the biggest driver, and add in people's generally poor media literacy, natural inclinations to insulate their views, loosening of regulations, and you get a recipe for partisan news.
By the way-- articles written more than a few weeks ago are automatically given a note in the main feed about the date they were written. Looks like your title has been updated to reflect that.
By the way-- articles written more than a few weeks ago are automatically given a note in the main feed about the date they were written. Looks like your title has been updated to reflect that.
no, it is. online journalism has been just as racked by layoffs as print journalism has. literally earlier this year, something like two thousand people got laid off in print and digital media in...
Consider that social media and the internet has dramatically lowered the cost to produce and distribute information - so costs as LOW right now, not high. Newspaper outfits that put out print papers are hurting, but I don't believe that's true of online-focused outfits.
no, it is. online journalism has been just as racked by layoffs as print journalism has. literally earlier this year, something like two thousand people got laid off in print and digital media in the span of a week (and even at places like buzzfeed, where they make significant profit). the reality is, unless you're a name brand or extremely profitable, as a newspaper or a digital outlet of any kind, you're in trouble in the next few years. we're in a pretty good economy, people are making pretty good profits, but people are still being laid off.
we're likely to see the rise of alternative media continue over all but a few lucky smaller outlets and the big name ones for the simple reason that many alternative media outlets essentially have their existence subsidized by sticking to big platforms like youtube and twitter (as is true of many smaller, progressive leaning outlets), or by having big donors behind them which can take the hit in the short term to create profit in the long term (as is true of some conservative leaning outlets). they can weather pretty much any economic crisis because they're dependent on someone else's infrastructure--most established news outlets nowadays simply do not have that privilege, and also lack the readership or the name recognition to make up the deficit and be worthwhile to someone.
You're right. I should have said something like "costs are low for alternative "news", blogspam, opinion-disguised as fact, memes, social media posters, etc." The point that I didn't make very...
see the rise of alternative media continue
You're right. I should have said something like "costs are low for alternative "news", blogspam, opinion-disguised as fact, memes, social media posters, etc." The point that I didn't make very well is that all of the non-journalistic news - meaning alternative media that don't hold themselves to traditional journalistic standards - is cheap to produce, much cheaper than real journalism, and that's drowning out fact-based news on social media.
I included the date in the title as I think it important to know when it's written given the sharp rise of partisan news in recent years.
Given our current state, I'm very interested in what led to the objectivity in journalism during the mid-to-late 20th century and that's why I posted this.
I think that social media's role in this is huge (as do many others) and it seems to push for the exact opposite of what the author posits are the reason for the rise objective journalism in the latter part of the 20th century:
Consider that social media and the internet has dramatically lowered the cost to produce and distribute information - so costs as LOW right now, not high. Newspaper outfits that put out print papers are hurting
but I don't believe that's true of online-focused outfitsbut costs are low for alternative "news", blogspam, opinion-disguised as fact, memes, social media posters, etc. The point that I didn't make very well is that all of the non-journalistic news - meaning alternative media that don't hold themselves to traditional journalistic standards - is cheap to produce, much cheaper than real journalism, and that's drowning out fact-based news on social media. Furthermore, advertising on social media is all about hitting niches and so news that caters to specific niches is desirable.I think that is the biggest driver, and add in people's generally poor media literacy, natural inclinations to insulate their views, loosening of regulations, and you get a recipe for partisan news.
EDIT: Updated based on alyaza's comment
By the way-- articles written more than a few weeks ago are automatically given a note in the main feed about the date they were written. Looks like your title has been updated to reflect that.
Thank you! I didn't know that.
no, it is. online journalism has been just as racked by layoffs as print journalism has. literally earlier this year, something like two thousand people got laid off in print and digital media in the span of a week (and even at places like buzzfeed, where they make significant profit). the reality is, unless you're a name brand or extremely profitable, as a newspaper or a digital outlet of any kind, you're in trouble in the next few years. we're in a pretty good economy, people are making pretty good profits, but people are still being laid off.
we're likely to see the rise of alternative media continue over all but a few lucky smaller outlets and the big name ones for the simple reason that many alternative media outlets essentially have their existence subsidized by sticking to big platforms like youtube and twitter (as is true of many smaller, progressive leaning outlets), or by having big donors behind them which can take the hit in the short term to create profit in the long term (as is true of some conservative leaning outlets). they can weather pretty much any economic crisis because they're dependent on someone else's infrastructure--most established news outlets nowadays simply do not have that privilege, and also lack the readership or the name recognition to make up the deficit and be worthwhile to someone.
You're right. I should have said something like "costs are low for alternative "news", blogspam, opinion-disguised as fact, memes, social media posters, etc." The point that I didn't make very well is that all of the non-journalistic news - meaning alternative media that don't hold themselves to traditional journalistic standards - is cheap to produce, much cheaper than real journalism, and that's drowning out fact-based news on social media.