I will say this.
If you are a Media Company your News Division should be a loss leader. If it’s not, you aren’t providing enough news or you are not relevant enough. I should be able to read (if I want to), what kind of gum was passed out to the line at the concert I was at (or my kid). If it’s not Pajama media will grow (yay) because of increased connectivity.
Do not Editorialize your News. I paid for your friggen paper just like the other guy. Consign your insulting me to something discretionary in nature, or else I will just decline you totally. This goes both ways
I really don’t care about your writers views on things beyond the topic they are covering. This crap annoys me to no freggin end with sports writing. I am tired of the whole Workers of the World Unite deal when it comes to people who makes millions of dollars.
To me the issue is not some illusory "right to know" but actually a fundamental philosophical question. Do we actually assume that anyone is objective? When we are children we go to school, and teachers inculcate certain things in us. Math teachers show the logic and the proofs of theorems, and we are supposed to understand the premises and learn the implications of the assumptions involved. English teachers tell us about the parts of speech and the Objective Case, and so on. Health teachers tell us about nutrition, sanitation, first aid, and bodily functions. Traditional knowledge, all fine and good.The problem comes in when history and especially modern history and civics comes into the picture. History is political in important respects. How much sympathy is accorded to whom? How much attention is accorded to whom? Who, if anyone, is assumed to be objective?
IMHO journalism is a system of exploiting the "new technology" of the high speed press and the telegraph and the radio and TV to practice on the credulity of the public. This effort is assisted by the public schools, which teach that journalism is objective. Once clear your head of all that propaganda, and you realize that you have the right to your own opinions, the right to speak and to spend money and time to try to promote your opinions, and the right to decide who you will pay attention to and who you will ignore.
That is all. You do not have the right to the truth; nobody is obligated to tell you what kind of gum was passed out at a concert. And if that is all you care about, you will have to investigate it yourself, all the while ignoring everyone who tries to tell you about what they care about.
You do not have the right to the truth; nobody is obligated to tell you what kind of gum was passed out at a concert. And if that is all you care about, you will have to investigate it yourself, all the while ignoring everyone who tries to tell you about what they care about.Apropos of that, Thomas Sowell had his breakout book entirely premised on the point that knowledge - actionable knowledge, at least - is not free.