21–30 of 173 posts
[flagged]
It amazes me that any major organisation believes pitching themselves at a minority group of deniers of the commonly-held views of everyone else - that most people therefore find abrasive and alienating - makes good business sense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There must be some other reasons. Disney and Netflix are doing fine while pushing propaganda.
ok I'll bite, because I must be missing the bus in the last 10 years. Please do tell what propagandas, as in topics, or ideas, Netflix and Disney are pushing and so was Vice? Thanks.
It is the usual. They propagate homosexuality, gender identity, feminism. All the bad stuff. Probably also propagation of witchcraft, if you ask more religious opponents.
(Seriously, considering Disney as progressive, is very weird in my opinion. And I think the person you replied to, did not actually think Disney is doing Propaganda, it was a mocking statement to the initial post)
Do people consider this as a great loss? I did not liked the sensationalistic format very much, so I avoided them, but they seemed to have done some investigative journalism?
Almost every closure of a real news outlet is a loss to society as a shrinking news market means stronger echo chambers and narrower reporting. Vice does some good reporting and in areas that others won't or only glaze over. Basically, variety & competition matters.
(X)
Only if they are good outlets. The loss of Gawkers was absolutely a net positive to society for example. Vice used to be absurdly good, mind you, but that was 10-15 years ago at best. There may not be that much of a loss here either, like Gawker.
On the other hand, if stuff like AP, Reuters, or CS Monitor closed down, THAT would be an actual loss. Those people actually still do good investigative journalism now and then.
[flagged]
A quarter of all US newspapers closed since 2005, and they've been shutting down at a pace of 2 newspapers per week.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/29/business/media/local-news...
The same source extrapolates that a third of all US newspapers is set to close by 2025.
Do you honestly believe that this bankruptcy wave only affects "woke" newspapers?
Also, your "Get woke, go broke" comment is based on the idea that if a newspaper you follow starts reporting things you don't like or personally agree them protest is a healthy or desirable course of action, as if depriving funds from a business will eliminate things you don't like or understand. I'm not sure this is a healthy take, and is reminiscente of extremism.
Some of their reports were remarkable, for example "The Cannibal Warlords of Liberia" [1] - that takes courage. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRuSS0iiFyo
Do people consider this as a great loss? I did not liked the sensationalistic format very much, so I avoided them, but they seemed to have done some investigative journalism?
Almost every closure of a real news outlet is a loss to society as a shrinking news market means stronger echo chambers and narrower reporting. Vice does some good reporting and in areas that others won't or only glaze over. Basically, variety & competition matters.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Almost every closure of a real news outlet is a loss to society as a shrinking news market means stronger echo chambers and narrower reporting. Vice does some good reporting and in areas that others won't or only glaze over. Basically, variety & competition matters.
>Almost every closure of a real news outlet is a loss to society (X) Only if they are good outlets. The loss of Gawkers was absolutely a net positive to society for example. Vice used to be absurdly good, mind you, but that was 10-15 years ago at best. There may not be that much of a loss here either, like Gawker. On the other hand, if stuff like AP, Reuters, or CS Monitor closed down, THAT would be an actual loss. T…