Replies

the decision to buy the paper at all is an entertainment decision - we buy the paper because we are bored.

There are many who don't.

Many, perhaps - but there is a crucial difference between "many" and "nearly all." If nearly all readers were actually interested in being informed rather than entertained, the newspapers could sensibly be expected to write to that audience. But since there is an ineluctable potential market of sheeple out there to appeal to, and because the last 10% of circulation tells the tale of how much profit or loss the paper will net (that's true of nearly all businesses), the pressure to entertain is unavoidable.

I used to buy (now I give my money to FR) news serivices to be informed. I used to buy The Economist and the Christian Science Monitor. Your projection of your values upon the purchase decision, in that respect, induces you to miss the purpose of the owners of the news and information service in biasing that material to the left.

From my #505:

Journalism defines itself by its deadlines first of all, and secondly by its affectation of objectivity.
The deadline has the effect of demanding of the journalist that something which happened - or at least was learned about - since the last deadline shall be deemed to be "important." Significant enough to demand the public's attention. All very well, if the Titanic sank yesterday - but what are the odds that you would be able to recall any portion of the front page headline story of The New York Times ten years ago today? The deadline is simply, "The show must go on," applied to topical nonfiction entertainment.

But since there is an ineluctable potential market of sheeple out there to appeal to, and because the last 10% of circulation tells the tale of how much profit or loss the paper will net (that's true of nearly all businesses), the pressure to entertain is unavoidable.

It is a means to an end. The end is influence. Were the paper unable to influence, they could not sell advertising. Advertising revenue is usually the lion's share of print media revenue; in the case of broadcast media, it's virtually all their revenue. No matter how many people read the paper or watched the station, unless that medium is capable of modifying behavior, there isn't a dime in it no matter how entertaining it might be.

Witness the influence exerted by Walter Cronkite. He was hardly entertaining; he was trusted. Your case for entertainment in news, is at best, applicable only at the margins. It doesn't satisfy the requirements as a premise as you have adopted.

Significant enough to demand the public's attention. All very well, if the Titanic sank yesterday - but what are the odds that you would be able to recall any portion of the front page headline story of The New York Times ten years ago today?

You have a very odd and subjectively broad definition of, "entertainment."