If I pay the right media, yes. The incentive of these media is justice, the right of the people to know the truth and how they are being robbed by the upper class, their passion for journalism and the trust they build with their community.
They don’t sensationalise stuff because their income doesn’t depend on clicks in the Google feed but rather on the people who fund them. They don’t depend on clicks, because they don’t depend on ads to make profit. They don’t want to make excess profit, they want to cover their running costs and salaries which is achieved by monthly subscriptions. Readers who are willing to pay for a newspaper, are not persuaded to do so by thumbnails and clicks, but rather by the value of the content. The sensationalism and clickbaits and ads are mainstream, rich-people-owned media job in fact, the exact opposite of what you claimed. This is because these media seek profit and the only way to get it is by making you watch ads and click on articles. Let alone the fact that they have contradicting interests with the people, so their covering of the news will be skewed accordingly.
Why do you think I’m imagining this or that I’m thinking about something unrealistic lol? I have years of experience with grassroots non-profit media, I’m following lots of them and I get my news from them. I am talking from experience, not imagination.
That is a lot of wish thinking there my friend. do you know why sensationalism works with the Google feed? because it works at getting people to consume your media. any business that relies on people consuming media wants as many people consuming said media as possible, incentivizing them to sensationalize.
You on the other hand made the moral argument in capitalism, something that should be so obviously wrong that unrealistic is an understatement. And look at you, it worked, by sensationalizing the issue of news, you now mainly consume their media.
You are so clueless and excessively confident I don’t know why I keep on replying to you.
Can you distinguish in your mind media whose revenue depend on your clicks, through ads and engagement and media that don’t depend on your clicks because they are funded by readers subscriptions? Can you, or is it too hard?
Any rich person/oligarch owned media is run with profit incentive, it needs to increase its revenue, because otherwise it’s an unprofitable investment. It’s in their direct interest to make you click on their articles.
Non profit, people-funded media on the other hand depend on their subscribers confidence that they will deliver valuable and accurate journalism. That’s why people would subscribe. And that’s why they aren’t touched by your stupid repetitive arguments, they are not businesses, they don’t run on profit, they are detached from it. Not every single one is good, but they are the only ones that have the prerequisites to be good
As for the last part I don’t even know what to say honestly. You don’t even use the word sensationalism correct. Does sensationalism mean having a positive opinion for any reason about any media? Where are those assumptions coming from?
You’re obviously not worth discussing with. You are spewing words without any cohesion. You didn’t even answer any of my statements, you started speaking as if I didn’t answer you, saying the same thing with your previous comment and explaining to me something I’ve already addressed.
If I pay the right media, yes. The incentive of these media is justice, the right of the people to know the truth and how they are being robbed by the upper class, their passion for journalism and the trust they build with their community.
They don’t sensationalise stuff because their income doesn’t depend on clicks in the Google feed but rather on the people who fund them. They don’t depend on clicks, because they don’t depend on ads to make profit. They don’t want to make excess profit, they want to cover their running costs and salaries which is achieved by monthly subscriptions. Readers who are willing to pay for a newspaper, are not persuaded to do so by thumbnails and clicks, but rather by the value of the content. The sensationalism and clickbaits and ads are mainstream, rich-people-owned media job in fact, the exact opposite of what you claimed. This is because these media seek profit and the only way to get it is by making you watch ads and click on articles. Let alone the fact that they have contradicting interests with the people, so their covering of the news will be skewed accordingly.
Why do you think I’m imagining this or that I’m thinking about something unrealistic lol? I have years of experience with grassroots non-profit media, I’m following lots of them and I get my news from them. I am talking from experience, not imagination.
That is a lot of wish thinking there my friend. do you know why sensationalism works with the Google feed? because it works at getting people to consume your media. any business that relies on people consuming media wants as many people consuming said media as possible, incentivizing them to sensationalize.
You on the other hand made the moral argument in capitalism, something that should be so obviously wrong that unrealistic is an understatement. And look at you, it worked, by sensationalizing the issue of news, you now mainly consume their media.
You are so clueless and excessively confident I don’t know why I keep on replying to you.
Can you distinguish in your mind media whose revenue depend on your clicks, through ads and engagement and media that don’t depend on your clicks because they are funded by readers subscriptions? Can you, or is it too hard?
Any rich person/oligarch owned media is run with profit incentive, it needs to increase its revenue, because otherwise it’s an unprofitable investment. It’s in their direct interest to make you click on their articles.
Non profit, people-funded media on the other hand depend on their subscribers confidence that they will deliver valuable and accurate journalism. That’s why people would subscribe. And that’s why they aren’t touched by your stupid repetitive arguments, they are not businesses, they don’t run on profit, they are detached from it. Not every single one is good, but they are the only ones that have the prerequisites to be good
As for the last part I don’t even know what to say honestly. You don’t even use the word sensationalism correct. Does sensationalism mean having a positive opinion for any reason about any media? Where are those assumptions coming from?
You’re obviously not worth discussing with. You are spewing words without any cohesion. You didn’t even answer any of my statements, you started speaking as if I didn’t answer you, saying the same thing with your previous comment and explaining to me something I’ve already addressed.