Slashdot Mirror
Online Journalism Is Becoming a Billionaires' Plaything (Again)
Nerval's Lobster writes "In the 1941 film Citizen Kane, the titular newspaper magnate (played with cheeky insouciance by Orson Welles) gleefully tells a doubter that he's prepared to lose a million dollars every year in order to keep publishing. "At a rate of a million dollars a year," he smirks, "I'll have to close this place in 60 years." Over the past decade, of course, many newspapers and magazines have lost a lot more than a million dollars a year, and there are signs that online publications are having trouble holding their finances together, as well. But some very rich people are stepping in to prop things up: first Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos bought The Washington Post for $250 million, then eBay founder Pierre Omidyar offered journalist Glenn Greenwald a whole lot of cash to start up a general interest publication. Billionaires and multimillionaires, of course, have total freedom to fund whatever they want—and that could be a good thing for publications with a mission and a serious need for cash. But what if the rich investor disagrees with something that his pet publication releases into the world? If (and when) that situation occurs, it could serve as an interesting test of whether the latest version of this "generous benefactor" model can work more effectively as an impartial channel for news than it has in the past (when conflicts of interest often sparked titanic fights between editors and owners)."
Rosebud...
Ok, who didn't have to lookup that word?
this has happened in all sectors of our emerging dystopia. the media was the first to go. the endgame of controlling information is to control everything. unless you have someone with good intentions at the helm, this is simply a step in a conquest of dominance. it's like the dark ages but with lawyers instead of soldiers.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
There was another film about this...
Haven't media enterprises always been owned by some rich guy/group?
The only difference now is that more people can get in the game, as the Internet provides for more channels.
Old channels are regulated by the state, so we can only expect the level of censorship and manipulation to be higher.
Mainstream media has been a combination of reality show and bullshit for decades now. It can only get better.
The freedom of the press belongs to the owner of the press.
This is not a signature.
Billionaires and multimillionaires, of course, have total freedom to fund whatever they wantâ"and that could be a good thing for publications with a mission and a serious need for cash.
in the late 19th century and into the beginnings of the 20th century america and england had epidemic problems with the 'well to do' financing newspapers. it took investigative journalists that didnt care about the advertisers or the backers to correct this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muckraker
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_American_newspapers#The_press_in_the_Party_System:_1820.E2.80.931890
the difference being todays muckrakers have the internet. its much harder, although not impossible, to silence a glen greenwald or a julian assange if they so choose to expose your corruption. plutocratically controlled news is an important thing to have when voters are striking for fair minimum wage, protesting your banks in occupy camps, and largely backing healthcare and prison reforms that would undermine your system of creating intentional strife within parties or groups of people to further advance your cause.
Good people go to bed earlier.
.. always bends to business or advertisers. At this point I'd like (I know it's unrealistic) to have a news organization that's totally funded by the public via central bank and they have a bottomless well of money to spend in case of political emergency (aka build it into the system) that's run by the sanest citizens. They are picked for their sanity and respect for the truth. People who accept science, aren't easily fooled by left/right ideology, understand that societies have to change in accordance with what is true about the universe, even if that up-ends the status quo. We have people trying to cling to 19th century ideologies in a world where technology is fast making human elements unprofitable over the long term.
News sucks so bad because most people are just too scared or too sheepish to actually call out the corporate system on its bullshit because they depend on that very system for survival, too many people are easily manipulated by the threats of loss of income, relationships and status.
Since the Internet has failed to realize its goal of making it possible for the little guy to be on an even playing field with the large companies, I would say that it's par for the course that the rich people will take over.
The promise of open standards and democratic information have been destroyed with the enthusiastic participation of the very people who told us open standards were the way forward. E-mail has been abandoned for Twitter. The web has been abandoned for Facebook and the PC has been abandoned for the iPhone. And you love it.
This all happened after the U.S. high tech industry was strangled and dumped in a drainage ditch naked in 2000 and the space program was raped and left for dead somewhere in northern Asia.
It's too late to cry about it now. You got exactly what you wanted, and every step of the way when people pointed out we were on the wrong path you shouted them down with your smartass memes and your neckbearded atheist-habit self-assurance you are the smartest people in the world.
In ten years the Internet will be destroyed completely, and since there is nobody left under the age of 50 with an attention span longer than ten seconds the people who lose it won't have any idea what the hell happened.
And it will be your fault.
I'm not even talking about the historic examples of a century ago. Robert Murdock anyone?
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
You needn't go back to Charles Foster Kane or the William Randolph Hearsts of the world he was meant to represent. This kind of thing never went away (vide Rupert Murdoch or Ted Turner). The main difference between a Bezos and a Murdoch is that Bezos made his fortune indiscriminately selling books filled with insight, entertainment, truth, facts or lies, while Murdoch was much more discriminate in peddling lies.
But what if the rich investor disagrees with something that his pet publication releases into the world?
It is much more about the content, in *all* cases where a billionaire takes over, becoming poorer and poorer. Why ? Because the billionaire has become a billionaire by earning ( lots of ) money, and is 100% geared toward .... earning money. The only way to do that, with media, in our dystopian world, is by advertising. Advertising only works well if and when the media carrying the ads reach a large public. A large public can only be reached by rendering content poorer: shallower, shorter, simpler.
And that is how it works and has worked, e.g. for the ( prime example ! ) French "quality newspaper" Le Monde. Up to the beginning of the '90s, that newspaper was owned by private investors, philantropists actually, who knew that producing a quality newspaper costs money, more than that same newspaper can bring in. But then, some time in the '90s, Le Monde was taken over by rich investors. The result: from the stern, photo-less format for which it was famous, from great heights of linguistic refinement and from immense depths of understanding and background articles, Le Monde went to... well, pretty much the same format as other large-public newspapers: advertisements everywhere, shallow articles dealing with the craze and the hype of the day. If even Le Monde could not do it, I do not see how any other serious media can do it, whether they be newspaper, tv programme, radio - you name it.
Conclusion: any take-over of traditional media by billionaires is bad news. Bad news for the public at large. Bad news for the employed, conscientious journalists and reporters. Bad news for the "third power" that media have come to be in our ramshackle democracies. Bad news for all.
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
In the past century selling copies was a common method of financing; the entire book ecosystem is built around this concept. Similar is the movie ecosystem, which sold views until DVD's came along.
Recently the Internet has exploited the advertising method of financing. Newspapers and magazines have relied on this for decades.
RIch investors are not a new invention - it goes back thousands of years. This was how The Old Testament was paid for. Today nobody would know about Abraham except for the fellow who financed hand-written copies of the Torah. It is by far the oldest tradition. It's not evil. You pay to print your opinions, I pay to print my opinions. Millions read yours, maybe one or two will read mine. We both become part of the human cultural heritage.
Why am I supposed to worry about Jeff Bezos having more of an effect on the editorial direction of the WaPo than I am on, say, Disney affecting the editorial direction of ABC News (or Gannett, if you want to stick with print)? The only difference that I can see is that the latter is answerable to shareholders and so might tolerate fewer losses on the business. IMO, this horse was out of the barn years ago, and the nouveau riche* are the "same as the old boss" at this point.
*Sorry, I couldn't resist.
Stop learning! Only you can prevent esoterrorism.
But what if the rich investor^^W^WRupert Murdoch disagrees with something that his pet publication^W^W^W Fox News releases into the world?
Or let's go further back, since we're referencing Citizen Kane: How about Randolph ("Reefer Madness/Remember the Maine!") Hearst?
I wouldn't hold my breath over the Post launching an in-depth investigation into Amazon's contracts with the CIA, for example. More to the point, Bezos won't even have to say a word; even the dimmest editor knows which side of the bread his butter lies. Kinda like Russia Today's coverage about the treatment of the LGBT communities in that country is a bit... light. Or Al Jazeera's reportage on the practical enslavement of south pacific workers in the Middle East. Lesson: never single-source.
The question posed in the summary is moot. It's obvious that, say for example, the Washington Post won't publish anything that upsets Bezos (like a favorable Nook review).
Paid-for journalism is nothing new. It's just been exacerbated by the rise of the WWW.
In my (limited but non-zero) direct experience, billionaires are dangerous, since they tend to go outside their areas of competence, since everyone assumes that they know what they are doing, and since (at least in the United States) very few people will speak up when they are wrong.
Metrosexual? Isn't that the subway to the red light district in Paris?
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
And the NPR corespondent didn't hold his feet to the fire and ask, "Exactly what makes it unaffordable?"
That's exactly the problem. Of course if he did ask a question like that, the politician wouldn't have given NPR easy quotes any more. And that would mean the correspondent would have to work harder for a story.
Amy Goodman www.democracynow.org would have asked him. It can be done. Listen to her interview with Bill Clinton.
Or listen to Carole Coleman's interview with George W. Bush on Irish TV -- where she actually asked him substantive questions about the war in Iraq.
For chrissake, there has never been a day since the birth of humankind where journalism has been impartial. Right now, the powers that be seem to be changing hands, and so all the old partialities are falling to the new ones. Maybe the old minions are whining about impartiality, but in practice they are really just whineing that their partiality is being subbed out for somebody elses.
I'm confused by your post. What is the difference between rich "private investors, philantropists actually" and "rich investors"? If a rich guy buys a newspaper knowing it will lose money, how can you tell if he is a philanthropist before seeing the results?
Not quite. Have you ever seen Irréversible?
With these fancy New Yorker style words
Have you actually heard the average New Yorker speak? Fuggedaboutit.
You print something the owner of your publication or one of their major advertisers doesn't like, you get fired. Pure and simple. Just look at Fox (e.g. "Faux") News to see that. They outright distort the facts and lie to push their employer's agenda. Murkdock pays them well to look like fools and idiots--but there are greater fools and idiots who fall for that crap.
On the other hand, publications have soared to extraordinary heights in public opinion when reporters break earthshaking, investigative reports, even at the cost of the owner's friends and contacts in high places. Credibility brings in readers and more readers brings more money from advertisers. When publishers see the new bottom line attached to credibility, they usually loosen the reins and let the reporters do real work instead of writing fiction. For this, the problem is often self-correcting. The problem with gaining credibility is it can take years to have an effect, yet one misstep can blow it all away. Often, a major publication doesn't regain public trust until it is sold to a new publisher with an untainted reputation. The opposite can happen, too, when a reputable publication is bought out by a publisher of questionable reputation. Once the publisher starts pushing their questionable agenda into print, the publication's reputation slides rapidly and the target readership drops off. It is very difficult for even a top publication to recover from that situation.
The first place you will find out about the reputation of a given publication? From those on the front line: the reporters themselves. Contrary to public opinion, the majority of journalists take great pride in their work ethic and feel strongly that they are performing a vital public service factually reporting the news. So they take great offense to publications that don't do fact checking—called "Rags" in the industry. Reputable reporters almost all have a list of publications with which they would not want their names associated. Early in my career as a stringer (freelance writer), I commented to a colleague that I had applied to The XXXXX Post for a staff position. Nearly all the journalists around us stopped what they were doing, looked at me, and in one voice said, "Oh, God no! Not there!" Instead of covering the event (a boring political meeting going nowhere), the next forty minutes were spent with them giving me a lot of career guidance and networking. So, you want to know where you should be getting your news? Ask the reporters.
Whew! This water sure is cold!
Just looking at three of the leading newspapers in the U.S. (if not the world):
* The NY Times has long been owned by the Sulzbergers for over a century
* The Washington Post was owned by (or just controlled by?) the Grahams until Bezos bought it
* The Wall Street Journal was owned by the Bancroft family for over a century until News Corp. (Rupert Murdoch's company) bought it.
The fourth leading US newspaper, USA Today, was founded and is owned by Gannett, a leading owner of local media.
Many claim that government wants a dumb population that is easily controlled. Things that point to this is how people vote depending on their situation and what they are willing to accept as fact.
The truth is, corporations have owned government for some time now, and it is in their best interest (or the elite that own the corporations), to have a dumb population, that are willing to accept certain things as fact, usually despite their situation. This allows them to sponsor and get elected people who are malleable their cause, which can be summarized as: Keep as much wealth as possible or become even more wealthy. It also allows them to control political situations events by building a base to which a politician will need.
Many networks/publications are already nothing more than simple propaganda machines trying to spit our their masters will onto the populace as fast as they can vomit it out. It is all a bunch of billionaires looking after their own interests, and liberal or conservative, they both share one thing in common and that is they are massively wealthy and want to stay that way, and want more. This is just another tool in the tool box to that end.
How is the ownership of the Washington Post by Bezos any different than the past? Most major US newspapers have always been owned and controlled by a small handful of influential families. The Meyer and Graham families have traditionally owned and directly controlled the Post for most of its history (in addition to a whole slate of other interests like Kaplan and Slate), and those families have been active in the reporting and management of the newspaper. The New York Times for example has been owned by the Ochs-Sulzberger family for most of its history; even if it's "public" now, the vast majority of shares are still controlled by them. This doesn't even start talking about the other, newer media families like the Murdochs, the Turners and now the Buffett family through Berkshire Hathaway. The only thing that's different is that a new player has entered into the space, but the concerns levied against Bezos could easily be applied to the historic owners of other newspaper and media outlets.
Probably a 'wooosh' on my part, but just in case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Yorker
Government sucks, but it's better than corporate.
There are certain interests that every corporation shares. Like keeping corporate taxes low; protecting the wealthy owners; etc. So to balance that you need a large number of corporate-free sources. Not just non-profits, as you can get $5m/yr from Monsanto and still be non-profit. So you need either government funded or crowdsouced (and good luck doing that for a large org).
Government sources, by comparison, rarely focus on supporting the concept of government as a whole. For example, the US and Russia use many similar violent tactics to suppress protests. But their state news agencies don't try to downplay it because both are doing it -- when it happens in the US, Russia's state-sponsored news makes a scandal of it to embarrass the US. When it happens in Russia, the US's news makes a scandal of it.
So, if you combine two state-sponsored sources from competing governments, you can end up with a reasonable unbiased result. But you could combine a hundred corporate sources and the result would still lean to the right at least on economic issues.
The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review follows exactly this model. It was revived by Richard Mellon Scaife (a dual trust-fund baby who also bankrolled the character assassination of President Bill Clinton) as a conservative alternative to the Post-Gazette. According to Scaife's divorce records, he continued to dump tons of money into this well after the newspaper had captured a sizable market. I think (and hope) that everyone in Pittsburgh is fully aware that the only reason this newspaper exists is to spout conservative propaganda.
It also has/had a good comics section.