211–220 of 220 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here the government gives the media companies money all year every year. And its not even the government's money (from taxes) but my money that I am forced to pay for a contract that I never agreed to or want and can't opt out of.
Are you both Germans? What is here? >And its not even the government's money (from taxes) but my money If you're a tax payer the government's money is your money, no?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The truth is, journalism has cratered. However, most are not ready to accept the truth, since they still believe the media are an essential part of democracy.
Journalism is essential to democracy. Without journalism, democracy must die. See here for details: https://demodexio.substack.com/p/the-dangers-of-an-illiberal...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am looking for a neutral, down to the earth style newspaper, focused on world news, not only west/USA. I can definitely pay for that!
https://ground.news/ It gives ratings on headlines and it helps to get an overview of the news.
Someone please tell 'em about alt tags.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But you see the chicken and egg problem here. News outlets have deteriorated because they can't make money. If people actually paid for them they might have a chance to hire competent people and do investigative journalism. But now they're being paid mostly by ad revenue and a handful of subscribers. So they have to publish trash to optimize for clicks.
> News outlets have deteriorated because they can't make money. There are taxpayer-supported, nonprofit news sources. They are not any better, spewing the same type of opinionated stuff (propaganda, really). The need to make money is not the culprit there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don’t actually want that or you’d be paying for it already. The problem is that most news doesn’t affect you and the majority that does only affects you in that it excites, scares or entertains you. It wasn’t that news got bad or people got more evil, it’s that the value of information cratered and now it’s not even expensive enough to come with editors.
Is it possible we know each other from StackOverflow perhaps? Because I remember a bunch of people on there who think it is productive to start a posting with "You don’t actually want that".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The truth is, journalism has cratered. However, most are not ready to accept the truth, since they still believe the media are an essential part of democracy.
> The truth is, journalism has cratered. There's an old quote addressing exactly that: "When you’re young, you look at television and think, There’s a conspiracy. The networks have conspired to dumb us down. But when you get a little older, you realize that’s not true. The networks are in business to give people exactly what they want. That’s a far more depressing thought. Conspiracy is optimistic! You can shoot the…
1. Appealing to vast audiences and then selling them to someone else for a very low price per view or a subscription. (Populist)
2. Appealing to a small group that contributes handsomely to your cause. (Funded Propaganda/Self Funded)
Even publicly funded media has to do something along those lines and appeal to the people who fund their organization. When consuming journalism, you always have to look at who is paying for that journalism. That will determine what they DO NOT report on. This is why it's so important to view information from competing organizations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not about deserving. You're looking at this from a slightly odd angle. It's just saying there's no conspiracy; just market forces.
I dont remember claiming there is any sort of conspiracy. All I am saying is that you can't expect people to pay for low quality output. The other side seems to pretend that in capitalism, the consumer is supposed to pay to improve the product quality. I seriously doublt it works that way. What do media companies expect, a sort of loan from consumers for future quality articles?
Guessing a huge part of the reason is that Western firms are pulling out of China bigly. Chinese manufacturing and exports are an underreported crisis, both down apparently in the double digits.
The supply chain internally there has fallen victim to their government’s response of Covid. And, the fact the labor can be at parity with Mexico in many cases now. I’ve been doubling down on Mexico manufacturing to avoid most of the delays.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a combination of the federal reserve both having bought lots of assets and also made a lot of money on the assets it's holding. It's a bit weird. The federal reserve made money on the assets it held in the 2008 crisis. (Buy low, sell high!)
Though more properly, you would need to look at the risk adjusted returns, instead of just the absolute returns.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Though more properly, you would need to look at the risk adjusted returns, instead of just the absolute returns.
Further weird because the federal reserve issues the currency in which the assets are marketed... so was there really any risk, in the usual sense?
You can say that borrowing from the markets is riskless for the Fed, because it can always pay back with the printing press.
But lending to the markets is still risky: because market participants don't have a printing press to help fall back on.
(In this case, the Fed often also bought some assets and later sold them; that's financially equivalent enough to lending that it doesn't make a difference here.
Especially if the assets you are buying and selling are bonds.)