I don't see this as a free speech issue as I don't think the media has a responsibility to listen to what you have to say. At least not the private ones. If you don't like what they're doing you can always spend your money elsewhere.
The public institutions like the CBC might be different however these institutions were in place prior to the internet and you couldn’t comment on what you saw on the television or read in the press then. Yes, in the case of newspapers, you could write a letter to the editor, but the institutions chose which letters to publish. With television news you just took it in or changed the channel.
The solution here is to defund the CBC (ya, I know, never going to happen) and with private enterprises vote with your feet and go elsewhere.
One last thought, if these institutions thought there was money in encouraging online debate they'd do it. The money is in attracting a group of like minded individuals and then preaching to the choir. Or at least that's what most companies seem to think.
Your last point is one I hear a lot of. When media shifted from being driven by advertising revenue to becoming subscription all of the incentive became creating echo chambers.
I agree with most major national chains that there was a fair bit of discrimination put into what letters got published and which ones didn't. But I can remember at least with a lot of local media you did see running arguments between differing viewpoints go for weeks on end. Again this goes back to as long as there's an incentive. There was something of it advantage of getting different parts of the community when you weren't relying on your revenue stream coming from a singular point of view.
I do think online has changed however. It did seem let's say during the early Obama or Harper years that most using social media were trying to get feedback. Yes I recognized they might have been making a mistake as far as attracting more trolls than actual reasonable thinking, but it did at least provide something of hope that there might be something possible there.
I think that point you make about needing some sort of monetary incentive ends up being the key part of the entire conversation. If you can put something in that bag then you're much more likely to see them encourage feedback and simply moderate the content to screen out the problem children.
Has moving from advertising to subscription service really changed things? The goal is still getting the most viewers. Fox News was pulling in conservative viewers long before the internet even existed.
Fox showed that there was an unserved audience of people who didn't agree with the mainstream narrative and went after them. I'm not sure the intent was for the media to become wholly focused on what their audience wanted but that's where we are. "Audience capture" means if you don't keep giving them what they want you'll lose them.
There's also the ideology of those managing and "reporting" for the organizations. There's simply no desire to hear alternative viewpoints. This sometimes leads to simply shutting down comments if it's not going in the direction you want.
Like any product it is knowing the market and getting the most response. The difference is that media typically understands getting one bloc of viewers will ensure there is another you don't get due to opinion differences.
I do know from personal contacts that Corrus, Vista, and Rogers there has been some change in their editorial decisions because of being more conscious that way. Some years ago I used to know somebody who worked in the Toronto Star business side who argued they might have been receptive to what their advertisers had said in making certain decisions. Similar point in that it is certainly not something they would ignore if where the money comes from has a position needing attention.
There also does seem to be some comment from a few editors, maybe most notably Bari Weiss, who made the same argument as far as some newspapers go. Knowing what readers want to see is a different business decision that what an advertiser may be willing to pay for.
In reality most companies advertising are chasing return on their money more than anything. Is your audience the same I'm trying to get to buy my product.
Fox might be a different bag because they're part of a conglomerate media empire. I can see NBC or Disney having the same situation where a lot of their decisions might be more widespread because they own so much.
Fair point with the difference on reporters. Having worked on political campaigns and dealt with CBC people, they do have a number of field reporters that are not nearly in the same ideological orbit as they're editorial staffs are. I would still suggest for the most part if you look at who sits on those points you'll find the connection between the audience that they're searching for and how they try and direct most of their programming.
Fair that Fox preceded the internet. But even with television now streaming it produced the same problem that most of them have had to transfer to the same idea. Maybe CNN is part one of the better points on this one. During the 90s they might have been reasonably well grounded as a news organization. They're drift towards more of an editorial channel started at the same time that their websites went up. Compare the coverage of the 2000 US election night to 2016. It shifts from a news desk to a set that resembles a NFL halftime show.
I suppose to your point Fox found an audience early in the game, but the technology changes certainly affected how others have responded. You don't have somebody like CNN in its infancy believing that you might have a 24-hour news channel that at least purported to try and play the spectrum.
Once upon a time main stream media could be trusted to give accurate views on various points of news, if you were fortunate to use reliable ones. Of course, some were partisan but I am sure they wrote what they thought was appropriate.
But, many newspapers are now online. One, in particular, was seen to be fair and honest. A question was posed to women about incidents in their lives. When I answered the same morning I was told: 'Your views are not wanted.' No qualification given. Now, we ignore anything that group tries to publish. And the news, for years after, was all about that topic!
Because so many billionaires and right wing owners of the different forms of media only peddle what their masters want we ignore them, too.
Now, we follow particular authors we have found to be fair and trustworthy: staticians, economists, lawyers, medical doctors, and others. Perhaps we are only sketchily informed, but it's a start...
Interesting article Chris.
I don't see this as a free speech issue as I don't think the media has a responsibility to listen to what you have to say. At least not the private ones. If you don't like what they're doing you can always spend your money elsewhere.
The public institutions like the CBC might be different however these institutions were in place prior to the internet and you couldn’t comment on what you saw on the television or read in the press then. Yes, in the case of newspapers, you could write a letter to the editor, but the institutions chose which letters to publish. With television news you just took it in or changed the channel.
The solution here is to defund the CBC (ya, I know, never going to happen) and with private enterprises vote with your feet and go elsewhere.
One last thought, if these institutions thought there was money in encouraging online debate they'd do it. The money is in attracting a group of like minded individuals and then preaching to the choir. Or at least that's what most companies seem to think.
Your last point is one I hear a lot of. When media shifted from being driven by advertising revenue to becoming subscription all of the incentive became creating echo chambers.
I agree with most major national chains that there was a fair bit of discrimination put into what letters got published and which ones didn't. But I can remember at least with a lot of local media you did see running arguments between differing viewpoints go for weeks on end. Again this goes back to as long as there's an incentive. There was something of it advantage of getting different parts of the community when you weren't relying on your revenue stream coming from a singular point of view.
I do think online has changed however. It did seem let's say during the early Obama or Harper years that most using social media were trying to get feedback. Yes I recognized they might have been making a mistake as far as attracting more trolls than actual reasonable thinking, but it did at least provide something of hope that there might be something possible there.
I think that point you make about needing some sort of monetary incentive ends up being the key part of the entire conversation. If you can put something in that bag then you're much more likely to see them encourage feedback and simply moderate the content to screen out the problem children.
Has moving from advertising to subscription service really changed things? The goal is still getting the most viewers. Fox News was pulling in conservative viewers long before the internet even existed.
Fox showed that there was an unserved audience of people who didn't agree with the mainstream narrative and went after them. I'm not sure the intent was for the media to become wholly focused on what their audience wanted but that's where we are. "Audience capture" means if you don't keep giving them what they want you'll lose them.
There's also the ideology of those managing and "reporting" for the organizations. There's simply no desire to hear alternative viewpoints. This sometimes leads to simply shutting down comments if it's not going in the direction you want.
Like any product it is knowing the market and getting the most response. The difference is that media typically understands getting one bloc of viewers will ensure there is another you don't get due to opinion differences.
I do know from personal contacts that Corrus, Vista, and Rogers there has been some change in their editorial decisions because of being more conscious that way. Some years ago I used to know somebody who worked in the Toronto Star business side who argued they might have been receptive to what their advertisers had said in making certain decisions. Similar point in that it is certainly not something they would ignore if where the money comes from has a position needing attention.
There also does seem to be some comment from a few editors, maybe most notably Bari Weiss, who made the same argument as far as some newspapers go. Knowing what readers want to see is a different business decision that what an advertiser may be willing to pay for.
In reality most companies advertising are chasing return on their money more than anything. Is your audience the same I'm trying to get to buy my product.
Fox might be a different bag because they're part of a conglomerate media empire. I can see NBC or Disney having the same situation where a lot of their decisions might be more widespread because they own so much.
Fair point with the difference on reporters. Having worked on political campaigns and dealt with CBC people, they do have a number of field reporters that are not nearly in the same ideological orbit as they're editorial staffs are. I would still suggest for the most part if you look at who sits on those points you'll find the connection between the audience that they're searching for and how they try and direct most of their programming.
Fair that Fox preceded the internet. But even with television now streaming it produced the same problem that most of them have had to transfer to the same idea. Maybe CNN is part one of the better points on this one. During the 90s they might have been reasonably well grounded as a news organization. They're drift towards more of an editorial channel started at the same time that their websites went up. Compare the coverage of the 2000 US election night to 2016. It shifts from a news desk to a set that resembles a NFL halftime show.
I suppose to your point Fox found an audience early in the game, but the technology changes certainly affected how others have responded. You don't have somebody like CNN in its infancy believing that you might have a 24-hour news channel that at least purported to try and play the spectrum.
Once upon a time main stream media could be trusted to give accurate views on various points of news, if you were fortunate to use reliable ones. Of course, some were partisan but I am sure they wrote what they thought was appropriate.
But, many newspapers are now online. One, in particular, was seen to be fair and honest. A question was posed to women about incidents in their lives. When I answered the same morning I was told: 'Your views are not wanted.' No qualification given. Now, we ignore anything that group tries to publish. And the news, for years after, was all about that topic!
Because so many billionaires and right wing owners of the different forms of media only peddle what their masters want we ignore them, too.
Now, we follow particular authors we have found to be fair and trustworthy: staticians, economists, lawyers, medical doctors, and others. Perhaps we are only sketchily informed, but it's a start...