I figure an article like this one will be fun for just about everyone.... https://greenwald.substack.com/p/cnns-new-reporter-natasha-bertrand
I don't say that from a place of overwhelming cynicism. I suppose I could also say "Remember when business was about developing quality products and services?" or "Remember when government was about securing life, liberty, and property?". Anyway, if folks dig Big Media here, more power to 'em I suppose
I suppose there's no reason that the principles of public choice economics wouldn't apply just as well to the fourth branch of government as to the first three.
That ole Mencken quote about deserving to get it good and hard comes to mind. You ever read Durant's The Lessons Of History ?
Media today is looking for its own interests and those of its advertisers and shareholders. Media outlets are businesses. Century ago in the USA media and the news was one organization that most people could count on to tell the truth and expose wrongful practices in business and government. The general perception was that Media worked to protect the public’s interest, rather than the interests of greedy business owners and political machinists of the time. Major source was the newspapers the news were read. The providers and journalists prided themselves on being fair and balanced, and most importantly, telling the truth. Once the popularity of the radio and television rose as progress continued it gave birth to government-sanctioned regulatory agencies, like FDA for the food and drug etc. Unions came alone. Politics and greed took over the media. Media today appears being sensationalist and out to sell their product. At times media practice censorship that not serve the public good it keeps information from the public, especially if it can hurt a presidential candidate that they are associated with directly, financially or politically etc. Media as a cartel can be used to manipulate public, they can execute political hit jobs, especially if someone is hurting them or exposing their fake news. Journalism by definition cannot be sound if it is biased, and therefore the journalism presented by any corporate, advertisement-funded news organization cannot be sound, and thus does not serve the public good. Now with Internet and social media sites, suddenly everyone with smartphone is a reporter.
Yeah, when I was writing my first comment I specifically had Hearst in mind. And a century ago, well, that was right after WW1, and it would seem to me that would have been a pretty low point for US media credibility. But who the hell really knows. It's hard enough for me to get a sense of what the "average" person around me thinks, much less what people really believed a hundred years ago. Anyway, back to the original article. "pee-pee tape" I'd be more comfortable watching this shitshow unravel from somewhere in Patagonia.