It's worth noting that the NYT and WaPo are not the only news organizations left in America. Even as hometown newspapers continue to disappear, cities like Los Angeles, San Fransisco, Chicago and others still have relatively robust news organizations, not all of which are owned by billionaires.
I focused on NYT and WaPo because those were the only two papers that the authors of the Columbia Journalism Review article analyzed. But you could go back to your favorite local and read the description of their methodology and check it out for yourself.
Thank you Georgia for all the hours you must have spent bringing us this important article.
"Media companies are public corporations. They are accountable to their Board of Directors. They respond to possible negative action on their revenue streams and profitability and to activist shareholders." This paragraph really impressed me, more than A.G. Sulzburger's long winded defense of the New York Times. If his reporters and editors were really as free as he claims, we wouldn't have the problem of misinformation he claims to deplore.
Vanguard and BlackRock each own twice as much as ValueAct. Why don't you talk about their influence?
All of this concerns the media that half of the country is exposed to. What about the right-wing side of the country, who mostly aren't even seeing this media?
I focused on Valueact because they are known to be activist investors that work with the companies they invest in as opposed to gutting them and selling off parts, so I was looking for that aspect. Vanguard and Blackrock are so big they own a lot of everything so sorting out how selective they are is a huge task. They don't have any seats on the Company Board of Directors either, while Valueact has been known to bargain for board seats.
Back in February BlackRock and and Value act both owned about around 8% of the company stock. Judgement call on my part, and also time constraints on my part. But it would be great to do more research along those lines. Interested in doing some research in that area? I really want to get back to my campaign finance/dark money research but the Columbia Journalism Review article was just had too much potential impact not to dig into it.
Here’s another take on consuming news media coverage based on source type. This from John Halpin’s November 26 The Liberal Patriot. Are the users of social media any more partisan or ideological than consumers of other types of media? Cable, local or national network television, newspapers, social media, etc.. The findings of this study suggest social media news consumers are less polarized than traditional outlets - cable, newspapers or television.
It's worth noting that the NYT and WaPo are not the only news organizations left in America. Even as hometown newspapers continue to disappear, cities like Los Angeles, San Fransisco, Chicago and others still have relatively robust news organizations, not all of which are owned by billionaires.
I focused on NYT and WaPo because those were the only two papers that the authors of the Columbia Journalism Review article analyzed. But you could go back to your favorite local and read the description of their methodology and check it out for yourself.
Thank you Georgia for all the hours you must have spent bringing us this important article.
"Media companies are public corporations. They are accountable to their Board of Directors. They respond to possible negative action on their revenue streams and profitability and to activist shareholders." This paragraph really impressed me, more than A.G. Sulzburger's long winded defense of the New York Times. If his reporters and editors were really as free as he claims, we wouldn't have the problem of misinformation he claims to deplore.
Noam Chomsky was also no fan of the press. Have you read his book - "Manufacturing Consent."
Thanks for addressing this issue.
Vanguard and BlackRock each own twice as much as ValueAct. Why don't you talk about their influence?
All of this concerns the media that half of the country is exposed to. What about the right-wing side of the country, who mostly aren't even seeing this media?
I focused on Valueact because they are known to be activist investors that work with the companies they invest in as opposed to gutting them and selling off parts, so I was looking for that aspect. Vanguard and Blackrock are so big they own a lot of everything so sorting out how selective they are is a huge task. They don't have any seats on the Company Board of Directors either, while Valueact has been known to bargain for board seats.
Back in February BlackRock and and Value act both owned about around 8% of the company stock. Judgement call on my part, and also time constraints on my part. But it would be great to do more research along those lines. Interested in doing some research in that area? I really want to get back to my campaign finance/dark money research but the Columbia Journalism Review article was just had too much potential impact not to dig into it.
Here’s another take on consuming news media coverage based on source type. This from John Halpin’s November 26 The Liberal Patriot. Are the users of social media any more partisan or ideological than consumers of other types of media? Cable, local or national network television, newspapers, social media, etc.. The findings of this study suggest social media news consumers are less polarized than traditional outlets - cable, newspapers or television.
https://open.substack.com/pub/theliberalpatriot/p/legacy-media-and-political-polarization?r=1knhs2&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post