Post-Journalism newspapers

[Argus]

Post journalism is a phrase I hadn't previously heard. But in this article Martin Gurri uses the once venerable New York Times as an example of the new 'post journalism' newspaper, one set up not to provide news but to reinforce ideological beliefs, a sort of club for people with similar views. The Times now focuses less on truth and more on activism and the political agenda of the Left. Why? Because it's more profitable.

Led by the New York Times, a few prominent brand names moved to a model that sought to squeeze revenue from digital subscribers lured behind a paywall. This approach carried its own risks. The amount of information in the world was, for practical purposes, infinite. As supply vastly outstripped demand, the news now chased the reader, rather than the other way around. Today, nobody under 85 would look for news in a newspaper. Under such circumstances, what commodity could be offered for sale?

During the 2016 presidential campaign, the Times stumbled onto a possible answer. It entailed a wrenching pivot from a journalism of fact to a “post-journalism” of opinion—a term coined, in his book of that title, by media scholar Andrey Mir. Rather than news, the paper began to sell what was, in effect, a creed, an agenda, to a congregation of like-minded souls. Post-journalism “mixes open ideological intentions with a hidden business necessity required for the media to survive,” Mir observes. The new business model required a new style of reporting. Its language aimed to commodify polarization and threat: journalists had to “scare the audience to make it donate.” At stake was survival in the digital storm.

https://www.city-journal.org/journalism-advocacy-over-reporting

[Right To Left]

The Government should have set up some method of payment that could have prevented small, independent newspapers from either dying out or being bought out years ago!  Now, in smaller towns and cities, there is no coverage of local news that's too small for the FAANGS to take an interest in. So, unless someone posts a story on their Facebook or Twitter account, nobody will ever hear about it.

And those big newspapers and radio and TV are just shills for advertisers and motivated special interests. For example, when I turn on my local radio station - CHML just to get a quick traffic and weather report and listen too long, a talk show starts where every guest calling in is a prof or dept. head of some public policy or finance think tank who is actually paid by the corporate sponsors giving money to the university. And whatever he or she has to say about what's going on in the world is never going to be original or radical in any sense of the word. 

If real life blows up a narrative, then the talkingheads put together their excuses or brand new narratives, or just make the whole thing disappear from news coverage to be replaced by more important events....like whether Lady Gaga got her little dogs back! Nevermind what happened to her employee who took four bullets in a vain effort to do his job and protect her dogs.

[Jami Walker]

On 3/1/2021 at 11:39 PM, Right To Left said:

And those big newspapers and radio and TV are just shills for advertisers and motivated special interests. For example, when I turn on my local radio station - CHML just to get a quick traffic and weather report and listen too long, a talk show starts where every guest calling in is a prof or dept. head of some public policy or finance think tank who is actually paid by the corporate sponsors giving money to the university. And whatever he or she has to say about what's going on in the world is never going to be original or radical in any sense of the word. 

Of course this is a cover, all these channels and magazines are the property of individual entrepreneurs, businessmen whose aim is to make money. They are baiting the public into emotions, we are literally selling our emotions, and understandably, negative ones cost a lot more. All these TV shows have never, hear me, NEVER been made for talk to random people, real ordinary people who walk by you every day. They are made for the marketing portrait of "John" sitting on the sofa in the evening with the remote control in his hands, wearing only his pants and munching on crisps. This John is not trying to change his life, he is just a generator of bad emotions.

 

Edited January 31, 2022 by Jami Walker
mistake

[ViolaJones]

On 1/28/2022 at 3:58 PM, Jami Walker said:

Of course this is a cover, all these channels and magazines are the property of individual entrepreneurs, businessmen whose aim is to make money. They are baiting the public into emotions, we are literally selling our emotions, and understandably, negative ones cost a lot more. All these TV shows have never, hear me, NEVER been made for writemyessay real ordinary people who walk by you every day. They are made for the marketing portrait of "John" sitting on the sofa in the evening with the remote control in his hands, wearing only his pants and munching on crisps. This John is not trying to change his life, he is just a generator of bad emotions.

 

I completely agree with you - all this marketing is continuous business and nothing more. They don't give a damn about the opinion of ordinary people, they will do everything if only this would bring their love in ways. Such is our reality now the whole world is built around money and all newspapers and TV programs are practically subordinate to billionaires who only want to become richer.