Posted by JRDelirous:
It’s not that simple, JR. They want to keep their audience happy, but they also want to keep their parent company happy. Reporters and editors are not their own masters; their paychecks are ultimately issued and signed by MBAs, whose attitudes on certain public issues are in general very well known. Do you really think that circumstance doesn’t have some influence on their editorial decisions?
Posted by JRDelirous:
It’s not that simple, JR. They want to keep their audience happy, but they also want to keep their parent company happy. Reporters and editors are not their own masters; their paychecks are ultimately issued and signed by MBAs, whose attitudes on certain public issues are in general very well known. Do you really think that circumstance doesn’t have some influence on their editorial decisions?
Sure, BrainGlutton; but that’s included in the “agents of the bottom line” concept. After all, the parent company accounting trolls will be quite understanding if your piece that is contrary to their preferred political bias results in ratings and ad sales going thru the roof.
And the story isn’t considered considered offensive by any of their major advertisers (which is where they actually make most of their income, subscription is a pittance). It doesn’t matter what your ratings are if you don’t make the sponsors happy.
Oy, gevalt… what’s the matter here? Are you telling me that is not a known, given factor? Notice what I said: what the audience wants, not what the public needs. And the audience wants stories that make them feel good: they want to be told it’s Morning in America Again. Which suits the advertisers just beautifully, IMO.