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 are so clueless and excessively confident I don’t know why I keep on replying to you.
Can you distinguish in your mind media whose revenue depend on your clicks, through ads and engagement and media that don’t depend on your clicks because they are funded by readers subscriptions? Can you, or is it too hard?
Any rich person/oligarch owned media is run with profit incentive, it needs to increase its revenue, because otherwise it’s an unprofitable investment. It’s in their direct interest to make you click on their articles.
Non profit, people-funded media on the other hand depend on their subscribers confidence that they will deliver valuable and accurate journalism. That’s why people would subscribe. And that’s why they aren’t touched by your stupid repetitive arguments, they are not businesses, they don’t run on profit, they are detached from it. Not every single one is good, but they are the only ones that have the prerequisites to be good
As for the last part I don’t even know what to say honestly. You don’t even use the word sensationalism correct. Does sensationalism mean having a positive opinion for any reason about any media? Where are those assumptions coming from?
You’re obviously not worth discussing with. You are spewing words without any cohesion. You didn’t even answer any of my statements, you started speaking as if I didn’t answer you, saying the same thing with your previous comment and explaining to me something I’ve already addressed.
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 are so clueless and excessively confident I don’t know why I keep on replying to you.
Can you distinguish in your mind media whose revenue depend on your clicks, through ads and engagement and media that don’t depend on your clicks because they are funded by readers subscriptions? Can you, or is it too hard?
Any rich person/oligarch owned media is run with profit incentive, it needs to increase its revenue, because otherwise it’s an unprofitable investment. It’s in their direct interest to make you click on their articles.
Non profit, people-funded media on the other hand depend on their subscribers confidence that they will deliver valuable and accurate journalism. That’s why people would subscribe. And that’s why they aren’t touched by your stupid repetitive arguments, they are not businesses, they don’t run on profit, they are detached from it. Not every single one is good, but they are the only ones that have the prerequisites to be good
As for the last part I don’t even know what to say honestly. You don’t even use the word sensationalism correct. Does sensationalism mean having a positive opinion for any reason about any media? Where are those assumptions coming from?
You’re obviously not worth discussing with. You are spewing words without any cohesion. You didn’t even answer any of my statements, you started speaking as if I didn’t answer you, saying the same thing with your previous comment and explaining to me something I’ve already addressed.