The New York Times may or may not go bankrupt due to the unpopularity of its editorial policy. On the other hand, I’d hate to see the NY Times base its positions on economic impact. The same goes for the Washington Times.
When a new organization shapes itself with an eye toward ratings/circulation you get missing white girls, car chases, lip gloss and Bill O’Reilly.
IOW, let’s reject the Foxification of news anywhere in the political spectrum.
Hear, Hear!!! I hope you don't get banned for your comment. It doesn't seem to be very popular in many circles of FR.
Also, regardless of the editorial policy of many outlets, the primary reporting (boots on the ground) is still required. Good connections and networks and access take time to develop, and it's better to have accurate information than biased from the reporter.
“When a new organization shapes itself with an eye toward ratings/circulation you get missing white girls, car chases, lip gloss and Bill O’Reilly.
IOW, let’s reject the Foxification of news anywhere in the political spectrum.”
You should check out how capitalism works there, Comrade. You’ve obviously never had to sell a thing in your life.
If you can’t get enough of nodding in agreement while wanking off to old white men in suits, start your own channel. Maybe you like the same stupid soundbites repeated every 10 minutes, ad nauseum, but most people will turn the channel. Personally, I like to know what’s going on in the world outside politics as do the rest of the viewers who make FoxNews #1 in the ratings.
Lastly, if you hate everything about FoxNews, why do you watch it? To have something ELSE to bitch about? “Whaaaa! FoxNews shows stuff I don’t like! Whaaa!” For the love of GOD, TURN THE CHANNEL!
When a news organization shapes itself with an eye toward ratings/circulation, you get breaking news of OJ driving a white Bronco. Fundamentally, journalism is about self-promotion. Call yourself - or all your colleagues who will in turn call you - "objective," and you are promoting yourself. And that is the very opposite of objectivity.What you do not get is boring details of what the public has known for some time but has not demanded appropriate action on. Just like we heard very little of Osama ben Laden before 9/11. And just as we hear very little, actually, about the history of Clinton scandals which the Hsu scandal is simply repeating.
What we do hear is that claim that some Democrat scandal is "old news." As if that defined the public interest. What it does tend to do is define what interests the public - which is at best unrelated to the public interest, and frequently inimicable to it. To claim that something isn't important because it is already known is to claim that the Associated Press with its magic telegraphic newswire is always the definition of the public interest. And that is about as subjective an opinion as you are likely to encounter.