No, its called free and open because you can blog about damned near anything without getting thrown out of a window. Some small time blogs get big views so no, your premise has no merit.
Hard disagree my friend.
A small time blog is hardly journalism. You won’t see Joe’s blog as a reference for the news at 11.
There’s a shitload of blogs out there, and even if they’re trying to be the “news”, it’s 99% opinion based “reporting” on blogs.
It’s hard to compare someone’s personally owned blog with someone like Fox News, which has publications (websites, and blog-like content) as well as TV channels and webcast videos, both audio and video content available in every location where people consume news.
Unless it’s the largest blog to ever exist, it likely won’t hold a candle to the media giants that run most news organizations.
I get what you’re saying here friend, but no.
I agree about regular news, but a niche subset of this are blogs by academics, which straddle the line between academic writing work and news. I’m thinking of stuff like https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/ , a blog with multiple authors, but I am most familiar with Andrew German. They have a blogroll with many other examples.
A specific example of what I mean is that a while back, there was a big hub-bub about the shocking discovery of potentially arsenic based life. Turns out that this revelation was based on shoddy science and a dash of non-academic press picking up the exciting headline. A pretty thorough debunking was done on Rosie Redfield’s blog, where the quality of the scientific analysis is good, but is more opinionated than you’d typically find in a published paper(which can be good in some scenarios). This led to a bizarre situation where later news retrospectives of the hype did actually rely on Redfield’s blog as a reference.
Of course, this is still incredibly niche, and I think this subsection of blogs only end up like this because of the informal peer review networks that you get when a bunch of scientists make blogs, but I find it cool and interesting nonetheless.
Before shrugging and moving on - ask yourself if you support any smaller private media companies in any way at all - enabling them to bring you news with less bias, less agenda, and more fact checking.
It could be by viewing their ads with your ad blocker off, paying a subscription, or donating.
If you are unwilling to support any such media company in any way, I don’t think a complaint that media is all consolidated and doesn’t have your interests at heart is particularly compelling.
And the same people that own the media also own and operate the state.
I’m so glad this stuff is starting to finally bubble to the top of the public consciousness.
Now, everybody read Marx.
And the same people that own the media also own and operate the state.
Hey now. They don’t own and operate the state. They simply receive large low-interest loans to trade parcels of real estate that happen to account for the overwhelming bulk of developed property in the country. It’s you, the people, who are afforded the opportunity to meet and choose between the California Criminal Prosecutor and the New York Land Baron.
Just look out! One of them is a soulless fascist who will invoke the powers of the state to terrorize migrants, minorities, and labor activists. Meanwhile, the other is a goofy dimwit who will be too hobbled by bureaucracy to effectively delivery any of their campaign promises.
Find out which one during our Full Team Electoral Spectacle News Coverage! And remember, if the wrong person wins, you know know exactly who to blame. <JillStein.jpg>
Now, everybody read Marx.
Nice try. But I have it on good authority that learning to read makes you a Communist, so I dodged that bullet early on.
If you don’t pay to get your news, someone else does, and that someone might not have the same interests as you do.
Support media initiatives that are funded exclusively by the people, not by the state or the oligarchs.
you think you would get anything else if you do pay? honest question. what incentive is there for “individually funded media” to report anything better? In fact, why would they NOT sensationalize stuff? it leads to better sales and a stronger reader retention.
it’s not the solution you think it is, your best bet is to go to news aggregators like ground news and even that isn’t a 100% solution.
If I pay the right media, yes. The incentive of these media is justice, the right of the people to know the truth and how they are being robbed by the upper class, their passion for journalism and the trust they build with their community.
They don’t sensationalise stuff because their income doesn’t depend on clicks in the Google feed but rather on the people who fund them. They don’t depend on clicks, because they don’t depend on ads to make profit. They don’t want to make excess profit, they want to cover their running costs and salaries which is achieved by monthly subscriptions. Readers who are willing to pay for a newspaper, are not persuaded to do so by thumbnails and clicks, but rather by the value of the content. The sensationalism and clickbaits and ads are mainstream, rich-people-owned media job in fact, the exact opposite of what you claimed. This is because these media seek profit and the only way to get it is by making you watch ads and click on articles. Let alone the fact that they have contradicting interests with the people, so their covering of the news will be skewed accordingly.
Why do you think I’m imagining this or that I’m thinking about something unrealistic lol? I have years of experience with grassroots non-profit media, I’m following lots of them and I get my news from them. I am talking from experience, not imagination.
That is a lot of wish thinking there my friend. do you know why sensationalism works with the Google feed? because it works at getting people to consume your media. any business that relies on people consuming media wants as many people consuming said media as possible, incentivizing them to sensationalize.
You on the other hand made the moral argument in capitalism, something that should be so obviously wrong that unrealistic is an understatement. And look at you, it worked, by sensationalizing the issue of news, you now mainly consume their media.
You might be missing the point of the OP, your news aggregators is an aggregation of a story you’re being told.
you do realize that there are other news sources like DW or AZ who do publish counter to the big cooperate news outlets as well?
Six perspectives is a bit better than one. And that’s only counting mainstream media, there’s plenty of good independent journalism.
Is it six different perspectives or is it one perspective by six conglomerates that are colluding?
Is it really those 6 billionaires opinions in every one of the stories their media presents every day? Seems like a stretch. I could see them imprinting their biases and blocking stories that they don’t want out, but colluding to control the narrative gives them too much credit I think. I’m lucky enough to have some decent independent journalism in my area, but I would love if there was more!