Live data from Hacker News

China proposes prohibiting private investment in news service sector

bloombergquint.com

21–30 of 147 posts

Re: China proposes prohibiting private investment in news service sector

#21
post #5
post #3

I wonder why people don't demand more non-profit news or why articles written by for-profit organizations are as trusted as they are. Why should people trust articles written by NyT over articles written by Google?

What does non-profit news look like? A few rich people starting non-profit and making news might not be very trustworthy. I guess you mean a wide group of donors. But non-profits have a lot of trouble raising money without controversy. Imagine trying to solicit donations when every other story alienates half the donors. And it doesn't really answer a lot of the hard questions. Who is going to actually write the artic…

A better evolution would probably be similar to Spotify royalties.

Create one "donations to non-profit news" bucket, that people could freely contribute to (with tax advantages, like the election fund).

Then apportion that money out to all non-profit news organizations, according to some (readership) + (journalistic awards by their peers) weighting.

It removes the direct connection between donor and output, which is what we seem to want in news.

Re: China proposes prohibiting private investment in news service sector

#22
post #5
post #3

I wonder why people don't demand more non-profit news or why articles written by for-profit organizations are as trusted as they are. Why should people trust articles written by NyT over articles written by Google?

What does non-profit news look like? A few rich people starting non-profit and making news might not be very trustworthy. I guess you mean a wide group of donors. But non-profits have a lot of trouble raising money without controversy. Imagine trying to solicit donations when every other story alienates half the donors. And it doesn't really answer a lot of the hard questions. Who is going to actually write the artic…

An example of non-profit news in the US is PBS Newshour and in Canada, The Agenda with Steve Paikin on TVO. Both have broadcast pieces as well as accompanying online articles.

Re: China proposes prohibiting private investment in news service sector

#23
post #3

I wonder why people don't demand more non-profit news or why articles written by for-profit organizations are as trusted as they are. Why should people trust articles written by NyT over articles written by Google?

Having worked for non-profit news, I can tell you that they are in effect not that different from for-profit news. The majority of their revenue comes from wealthy donors, often in the form of "major gifts". Granted, this is usually done because it becomes a tax break but that doesn't mean that certain folks with enough money don't have unsaid influence. The frequent pledge drives are somewhat of a charade in that they create the perception that they will run out of money if they don't get donations from average joes right now. Depending on the outlet, this may or may not be the case. In big cities, non-profit media would be unlikely to go away even if most of their audience stopped donating.

In terms of journalistic ethics, non-profit is somewhat better but by design isn't necessarily free of the same crockery that occurs in for-profit news. Non-profits are more likely to get people who take journalistic ethic seriously, but non-profit orgs are also seen as career leap-pads to the big name for-profit outlets, thus you end up with a lot of the same people and similar practices that end up at places like WaPo.

I don't know what the answer is to news, but I'm pessimistic that present models of non-profit news are the solution some believe them to be.

> I wonder why [...] articles written by for-profit organizations are as trusted as they are.

That's like asking "why do people believe propaganda?" The entire business model is built on creating the perception that they are authoritative when they may be nothing but lackeys playing dress-up. Sadly, the average person receives a generally poor education and is never taught about human psychology and how programmable the human brain is, and many of the messages they've received about the world came from parents whose views were shaped by a world that didn't have the internet in its current form. You could place the truth in front of them and it's a mixed bag as to whether they take that information and form an original opinion. But if you dress that information in a suit and tie, perhaps with the right letter and color next to their name, they become conditioned to accept that information from a place of subordinance.

EDIT: I want to clarify that I don't actually like shitting on public media. There was a lot that I learned during my time in it, there are some fantastic journalists in that arena, and overall I want to be believe in the concept. I've been highly critical of just about every single organization I've ever been affiliated with, so my intent isn't to single them out.

Re: China proposes prohibiting private investment in news service sector

#24
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do people not care about accuracy? Or have they just given up?

>Do people not care about accuracy? Evidently not. When was the last time a mainstream news organization got heat from its own viewer base because of inaccurate reporting? I mean, it's fun to dunk on fox news because you think they're obviously spewing lies or whatever, but that doesn't really matter unless their viewership actually cares. Meanwhile outrage drives clicks, so journalists are strongly incentivized to s…

The issue is that modern news (and the economic model that backs it) is a mix of entertainment, education, and investigation.

Even assuming all leads were pursued equally, and all stories were published, entertainment is still highly partisan.

Which, presumably, is why we saw partisanship jump when the entertainment component increased in revenue importance (90s talk radio, then 2000s competitive 24/7 news).

Fox News was objectively brilliant in that they saw this coming, which is why they went ahead and devoted a huge chunk of their airtime to entertainment-weighted programming.

Re: China proposes prohibiting private investment in news service sector

#25
post #18
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most Americans don't seem to trust the press. Faith in "Mass Media" has plummeted to levels appropriate to their reliability on important issues [0]. And the media is a strange place. Something like Joe Rogan's podcast is realistically more mainstream and probably more trusted than most news programs. There will be many examples like that. [0] https://news.gallup.com/poll/195542/americans-trust-mass-med...

>Something like Joe Rogan's podcast is realistically more mainstream and probably more trusted than most news programs How can you "trust" a podcast that just interviews everyone and takes them at face value? Do people seriously go "yeah I heard it on joe rogan so I think it's probably true"?

Yeah as much as I like Joe Rogan's show (or at least I did before it moved to Spotify), I never thought of it as something I "trusted", or even something that would be comparable to a news program. Maybe I trusted that it was less fake and not as staged as most news, but it's comparing apples to oranges. Also, I dispute the idea that JRE is mainstream. It might be the most mainstream podcast, but almost everyone I know either hates the show or believes that Joe Rogan is a bad person, so I'm skeptical.

Re: China proposes prohibiting private investment in news service sector

#26
post #3

I wonder why people don't demand more non-profit news or why articles written by for-profit organizations are as trusted as they are. Why should people trust articles written by NyT over articles written by Google?

I agree, but Google is more in the news aggregation business, right?

I pay monthly donations to Democracy Now, PBS, and Matt Taibbi. For my tastes, I very much prefer these sources rather than MSNBC or Fox News, which I dislike (one reason is that they never seem to walk back major stories that we eventually find out that they initially got wrong - that seems either unprofessional or corrupt, or maybe both).

Re: China proposes prohibiting private investment in news service sector

#27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Xi does not want power for himself. Xi wants power to remain in the hands of the party and CPC is laying the foundation of governance model for a robust state in the 21st century that also (TBD) does not inhibit economic and technological development. It is reasonable to argue against that goal (statist socialism) but imho superficial to frame this as yet another power grab by an individual. He is simply the tip of a…

If Xi did not want power for himself he would not have removed the two-term limit to keep himself in power for life.

Because Communist countries tend to have very messy transfers of power, if not through continuity or annointment of a new leader by the old?

And by messy I mean armed forces involvement and/or bodies in the streets.

Re: China proposes prohibiting private investment in news service sector

#29
In the West privately funded media has increased polarisation over the last 50 years, so having stronger public investments in media could be helpful to stop this pervasive divisiveness. China has the opposite configuration where the state controls all information and you'll be re-educated if you say the wrong thing loud enough. These are both extremes that are undesirable IMO.
Post reply on HN