Hard News: Garbage in, garbage out
57 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 Newer→ Last
-
Moz, in reply to
If, for example, someone set up a new newspaper, TV news venture, or some other form of news, would the general population not support it to the same level as the existing mainstream media?
When Russel finishes playing with his collection of luxury cars I'm sure he'll explain how profitable dabbling in the investigative news business is. Or you could check on how profitable The Guardian is if you want a more newspaper-on-the-web outlet.
Big hint: Rupert's newspapers mostly lose money, and more news-focussed they are the more they lose - News of the World is kinda profitable, The Australian loses money like a pokie addict.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
Big hint: Rupert’s newspapers mostly lose money, and more news-focussed they are the more they lose – News of the World is kinda profitable, The Australian loses money like a pokie addict.
As in the News of the World that shut down after getting caught in the phone hacking act?
-
Moz, in reply to
As in the News of the World that shut down after getting caught in the phone hacking act?
Yes. There is no connection between profitability and hacking, let me assure you of that ;)
-
So, let's say the National Party knows that hanging shit on poor people and nominal criminal types is a reliable vote winner with the swingers. For argument's sake (because it isn't always that way).
Let's say then they wanted to win votes, desperately. To win the election. Which was very close despite Labour getting beat up in the press afterward. Because they wouldn't be politicians otherwise, eh.
What would be their imperative to tell the truth? Say they asked for a few different reports over the years and one was clearly bullshit but served their interests. Even without trying to get a broken report, they get a lot of them anyway and can just hang onto the right bits of the right ones for election time. Because the sky is falling and it's not the time to rock the boat => votes.
Surely that's the expected behaviour. They don't want to start a civil war or anything, but demonising people in counter-cultural social clubs, people out of work a long time, anyone the swing voter is unlikely to know personally, it wins elections.
So when something comes out near an election, a bit close to dig into it effectively, and it's one of those shitty vote-winners for them, it's going to be bullshit. Not fabricated, just wrong and probably long ago corrected.It seems like that should be the default assumption, because it's something they are strong incentives to do. Ministerial wage type benefits. Prestige. Just the thrill of winning, really, compared to the kick in the pants of losing.
-
Rob Stowell, in reply to
I was talking to an ex-colleague the other day who was running a team creating ‘native media’ that was larger than Mediaworks radio’s news team.
Any hints on what organisation this is? :)
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
Any hints on what organisation this is? :)
Not the upcoming Freed site? I'm hoping against hope that it's not Breitbart with a Kiwi accent.
-
nzlemming, in reply to
Not the upcoming Freed site? I’m hoping against hope that it’s not Breitbart with a Kiwi accent.
If Slater is involved, your hope is misplaced.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.