Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've said it before. The USA MSM exists because of the "easily influenced". Self proclaimed progressive thinkers, and the "victims".
It's these people who like to proclaim they are the educated progressive thinkers of America. Yet they believe anything the NYT tells them without thought or question. Their other set of customers are the ones who exist in the world of permanent victim hood. The NYT loves to tell them they are victims and they believe it without thought or question.
They don't run any other kinds of stories.
The Mexicans & George Soros loves them for it. They are laughing all the way to the bank.
Even local news was treated as more of a public service than something that was supposed to draw on high ratings.
You're wrong about that as well. Local news always has been dependent upon viewership in order to sell advertising - which is how TV stations make money.
Quote:
And newspapers used to have classified sections, job postings, sale flyers, etc to drive revenue & newspaper sales along with local news coverage.
Classifieds, etc., have never made money. Subscriptions don't contribute much to the bottom line. It's all about advertising.
Quote:
Also audiences didn’t buy newspapers expecting to never read things they disagreed with back in the day. All that is different now.
LOL, oh, bullcrap. Newspapers always always always have been partisan and have taken stands on their editorial pages.
This post tells me you know nothing about newspapers or the news business. At all. Have a nice life.
You're wrong about that as well. Local news always has been dependent upon viewership in order to sell advertising - which is how TV stations make money.
Classifieds, etc., have never made money. Subscriptions don't contribute much to the bottom line. It's all about advertising.
LOL, oh, bullcrap. Newspapers always always always have been partisan and have taken stands on their editorial pages.
This post tells me you know nothing about newspapers or the news business. At all. Have a nice life.
Huh. Okay then.
The NY Times is not TV News, but my post you were replying to was about news in general, not just the Times.
Show business started having an influence on the news at both the local and national levels. Consultants were often hired to conduct market research. The focus shifted to bringing people information they wanted to see, versus what they needed to know.
In the early 1960s the networks, hugely profitable but worried about their images and about regulatory pressures, expanded their news operations and largely freed them from the pressures of commercial television. The "church" of news was to be separated from the "state" of entertainment.
In the 1970s and '80s, however, the barrier between news and entertainment has been increasingly eroded. Not all the changes of these years have been for the worse.
This stuff has been written about and discussed in journalism for decades, I don't know why you seem so sure it didn't exist.
Anyway, there has been a hard swing in both print and TV news towards giving specific audiences what they want to hear as opposed to reporting the news. Increased competition (including from the web) leads to fragmented audiences. Instead of competing with the 2 or 3 newspapers in a city for all the readers/local advertising dollars the business model has shiften to one where you deliver a slice of a narrower audience, one with many choices and who will only return if they like what they're reading. Before each market may have had one blatant tabloid, now even the middle of the road papers have to have a more defined "voice" that attracts specific readers.
I remember when Cheryl Attkisson was the darling of the left when she was ferreting out corruption on either Republicans and/or the Bush administration. She also found things on Democrats as well, but during the early 2000's Republicans were mostly in charge and on her radar.
She was not some left wing zealot, just a reputable investigative journalist.
However, when she started going after Obama & Co, suddenly CBS started to discourage her reports or published them on the back pages of the online site.
She eventually was told to stop certain stories with the excuse that the big wigs in NY felt they didn't have legs. Of course one of those big wigs was in the Obama circle, but that had nothing to do with it, right?
The point being that liberals love it when the MSM/press goes after their political opponents, but when someone doing their job goes after their ideological representatives, they become unwelcome. If they quit, get fired, or decide their independence is compromised by their superiors, they are "disgruntled" when they expose the bias.
The irony of course is that this accusation of the NYT is not some shocking revelation, as most who are not left wing knew it decades ago.
However can you or others explain for instance why the NYT has not endorsed a Republican presidential candidate for over 60 years?
Think about that for a minute. Some of the worst Democrat nominees like McGovern, Dukakis, Mondale, etc. were endorsed over very good and/or popular Republican presidents. There are hundreds of examples of bias toward liberals and against moderates/conservatives over the decades. If you would just open your eyes, maybe you could see it, even if you like the fact that most of the media reflects your ideology.
`
I don't recall much about Cheryl Attkisson before 2010 but I know she was a respected journalist but then she was let go. Then she went off the reservation with Benghazi and promoted her book on it claiming that her computer was hacked by the CIA and she had new information that would expose the government. Michelle Malkin is another one, worked for a respected newspaper, appeared on PBS and decided she could make more money promoting extreme views.
Plenty of examples where the NYT has been critical of other presidents but to say that they are going after Trump doesn't add up, he generates a headline each day or every few hours. The way he is treated by newspapers is unrivaled but its mostly due to his actions.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
