Should it be the news' job to entertain, or should it be

My dad used to own a news media, you literally cannot survive unless you are funded by interest groups. Profit cannot be made.

>>131424977

Interesting. So, no ad revenue? Also, did his outlet have to have the same biases the interest groups had?

>>131425283
>no ad revenue?

You quite literally CANNOT finance the incredible manpower necessary to report news with ad revenue. A media is by definition not sustainable.

And yes, he did.

> implying our opinion matters

>>131424791
why are mossy crumbling concrete steps the most comfy thing in the world

nothing is more comfy than hanging out on them eating some junk food

>>131426908
>junk food
there are now non-whites on /pol/

>>131424977
>>131426599

Bulgaria anon is correct. People do not consume proper non-sensationalist/directed news enough for ad revenue to pay for it, and it might not even pay for it if they did. Everything is bought and owned by special interests and everyone is pushing a narrative. There is no objectivity in journalism and there never has been, only the facade of objectivity.

>>131426908
enjoy your dirty butt and ants anon

>>131424977
this says a lot.
people who get into running a network should do so
without outside interests. that's why i like pbs

>>131424791
>Should it be the news' job to entertain
If I want to watch entertainment I will. I come to the news for objectivity... Or came to it.

>>131427265
Journalism and news is a kike invention.

Even once upon a time, when it was financially viable (the newspaper era), it was still subject to interests.

Anyway, the only way media can be regulated effectively is by the state. Free media should be forbidden and paid media should be the standard. That is the ONLY way to ensure journalism gives a shit about objectivity.

While it's free (i.e. websites), objective media cannot survive and will turn to interests or die and any attempts to produce paid media will die because interest groups will be able to produce subjective media.

I also worked in my dad's company for a while and I saw the corrupt, horrible mess that is journalism and news after the newspaper era died.

>>131427729

Agreed, but state media can't be trusted in most circumstances either, especially if the state isn't responsible. For example, and NPR PBS television in America is a collection of liberal indoctrination messages disguised as wholesome programming. These organizations pander to the left to retain funding and in exchange push their agenda under the guise of objectivity.

File: 1385752552958.gif (8KB, 256x264px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 256x264px

>>131424791
>Should it be the news' job to entertain, or should it be solely for conveying information, even if it loses money by doing so?
only an amerikike could have come up with such a question

>>131428229
>state media can't be trusted in most circumstances either

Nothing can be trusted because everything eventually leads to a person who has interests, goals and his own survival.

The best possible solution may be a state, it may be nobody, it may be anything. But like it or not, with democracy, the state is about the best possible choice we have for controlling things directly as separate citizens.

File: 04.Arpil-1938-04.jpg (311KB, 850x1130px) Image search: [Google]

311KB, 850x1130px

>>131430915
>democracy