pull down to refresh

Twenty years ago Harvard graduate students Matthew Gentzkow and Jesse Shapiro began developing the ideas that would form a series of foundational papers on the topic. In a 2006 paper, “Media Bias and Reputation,” they outlined the central dynamic on a theoretical level: If consumers perceive news to be of higher quality when it confirms what they already believe to be true, news companies will have an incentive to fit their coverage to their viewers’ pre-existing worldviews.
...
With several papers declining to make presidential endorsements this year, one hopes there’s a future for unifying, objective sources of news. My hunch is that it will get worse before it gets better. I am skeptical that there is enough demand for objectivity and believe there are powerful economic forces pushing media outlets to give audiences the red meat they desire. If we truly want less-biased media, we need to stop consuming the unhealthy options on offer. The market will give us what we want.
What do you think, Stackers? Is there enough demand for objective news coverage to support a more truthful media marketplace?
The market will give us what we want.
Probably. Which is 1) subscriptions to these platforms fall of a cliff, and 2) why efforts like positive news, or Human Progress-type "look how everything gets better" can't monetize. Nobody wants that!
(not sure why, seems like a good thing)
reply
It's really tricky to understand the marketplace and incentives, I think.
For example, I've heard that shows like Morning Joe (MSNBC) don't get much viewership by regular people, but they are so influential and get paid big bucks because TPTB (i.e. the deep state types) do listen to them.
Thus, big money pours in from lobbyists and other interested parties.
Thinking that the media is responding to the demands of regular people may be actually a mistake. What matters more is what are the demands of the big money groups.
reply
good point, didn't think about that.
also, what's that abbreviation, TPTB...?
reply
"the powers that be"
reply