Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

9600n81 t1_jcu4wr2 wrote

Rich people buy the newspaper company. The owner of the company gets to dictate editorial policy.

17

zagglefrapgooglegarb t1_jcu6bmh wrote

This, in a nutshell, is it.

'But why do journalists promote those opinions or points of view if they're just being told to?'

Because they wouldn't be there if they didn't already lean that way themselves. Journalists don't become corrupted or biased, they're only there because they already are.

5

Caucasiafro t1_jcu4wcu wrote

There is nothing illegal about either of those in basically any country.

Either because that country has freedom of the press, which means the press can kinda do...whatever (within limits, libel laws are really serious in some places). Including hiring people that are inherently biased and refusing to publish work that doesn't say what they want to say.

Or the country does not have that and then its basically the state itself that's doing this.

2

callmecookie88 t1_jcu61wn wrote

The people with money want their thoughts and opinions to be the standard so that's what they spend their money on.

2

lowflier84 t1_jcu72yd wrote

Editorial bias has been the norm through most of our history. Knowing who is reading your paper is important to know, because that is how you court advertisers. And catering to those readers is how you increase circulation so that you can charge those advertisers more.

Now, for most of the 2nd half of the 20th century, this bias was, for the most part, confined to the opinion pages. The hard news sections tended to avoid editorializing in their stories. However, in the digital age, the economic pressure is just too great to not cater a lot more blatantly to viewers/readers.

2

fanestre t1_jcu8ia7 wrote

In bygone times, it was usual for there to be 2 or more papers even in midsize and small cities. Each paper had its own bias, but consumers could chose to read the one confirming their existing biases or read both to try to get the whole picture. The smaller papers have all been consolidated into huge corporations these days and even the larger ones are being put out of business by inflation and the internet.

2

David_R_Carroll t1_jcub9y1 wrote

To be specific, cheaper, more effective advertising options from likes of Facebook and Google. Even further concentrating where people get their news from.

1

What_is_rich t1_jcu5gid wrote

Editors are directed by COE to publish content that satisfies their advertisers. It's a business that must be profitable to survive.

1

David_R_Carroll t1_jcuaqzp wrote

There are lots of unprofitable news media, yet they exist. They are the mouthpiece of their owners, and serve to sway public opinion.

1

Target880 t1_jcu6v3i wrote

That is in large part the origin of new papers. The was primarily started by rich people or groups to give a voice to their political ideas. So most of them did not end up like that, most were intentionally started with that idea in mind.

1

Flair_Helper t1_jcu9ga5 wrote

Please read this entire message

Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):

Subjective or speculative replies are not allowed on ELI5. Only objective explanations are permitted here; your question is asking for speculation or subjective responses. This includes anything asking for peoples' subjective opinions, any kind of discussion, and anything where we would have to speculate on the answer. This very much includes asking about motivations of people or companies. This includes Just-so stories.

If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the detailed rules first. If you believe this submission was removed erroneously, please use this form and we will review your submission.

1