41–50 of 69 posts
That's the main problem isn't it? It would be nice if publications could opt in to putting some type of badge on an article that indicates it was written without corporate or political influence, with jail time if you lie. It's like writing content under oath. I think that would help visually distinguish news you can trust.
Even when stories aren’t made up there seem to be a clear focus on generating attention, because our attention is the real product on free news. That’s had a social media effect on news, and much like our Instagram profiles, it’s so heavily edited, that truth has lost its place, even when people aren’t intentionally lying. Obviously there is a difference, but I think it’s getting smaller by the minute. This is exactl…
I find that I'm significantly happier when I don't read or watch the news. In this case; ignorance is bliss.
> "I find it hard to trust any of it, and there are only a handful of sites I will rely on for accurate reporting." Boy, would I like to know which sites.
I’d start with sites that don’t rely on advertising revenue to stay afloat. So probably subscription sites like the Economist and Wall Street Journal, and public news sources like NPR and PBS. Though for the latter there is the pressure of government to consider.
I find that I'm significantly happier when I don't read or watch the news. In this case; ignorance is bliss.
Being informed is important when you're > voting age, besides that you might end up in a world that you hate because you chose not to want to know what direction it was headed in.
> later realized that this DJ buys so much advertising space that he effectively edits the magazine. That's the main problem isn't it? It would be nice if publications could opt in to putting some type of badge on an article that indicates it was written without corporate or political influence, with jail time if you lie. It's like writing content under oath. I think that would help visually distinguish news you can…
But the issue is that regardless of what you do, controversy and biases will creep in for all kinds of reasons. Even if the company doesn't gain anything, the writer/creator likely gains from their work being heavily shared...
If you want to see the true cost of an ad-based internet economy, this is it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Both of the subscription sites you mention have ads in both their paper and electronic editions. They receive a significant proportion of their revenues from advertisers. They don't have high net profit margins. What makes you think they don't rely on advertising revenue to stay afloat?
I was curious about the details, so I looked up The Economist's 2018 annual report. They get 17% of revenue from advertisements, while 60% of revenue comes from subscriptions. Their operating profit is 13% of revenue.
If the operating margin on the ads part of the business is less than ~25%, then they could break even without ads. Of course, breaking even is worse than making 35MM profit each year.
I may sound too jaded, but how do I know this piece (or book, the one reviewed here?) is not fake? Maybe I've gone way meta on this, but isn't kind of oxymoronic to write about how one fakes what one wrote and then expect the reader to take that particular writing seriously? The Kantian in me is particularly bothered with this. ;) Edit: typos.