Private mainstream media in Canada takes a lot of direct subsidy money from government as well (famously, $600m a few years ago), and it's to the point where it's debatable whether news outlets are real businesses producing something people need or desire, or they're just a policy objective.
A real news business, one that publishes non-fiction content about current events that people want to read in exchange for subscriptions and advertiser dollars, is probably too fringe to be considered News at this point, because what most people really want is not what is officially approved as good for them. It's not official news unless it supports an establishment narrative, and somehow journalists and editors have come to believe they have official credentials unrelated to the truth and quality of their work that are deserving of some kind of recognition, and even deference.
I don't even see this question of whether the NYTimes and other publishers might be compromised by FB money and others as a point of contention. It's like everyone already knows, but they're wrestling with whether they can tell people themselves.
> As Doug Reynolds, the managing partner for the West Virginia newspapers suing Facebook and Google for damages, told me, “If the future of this industry is that we’re dependent on their goodwill, then we don’t have an independent press anymore.”
One of the things we're seeing (imho) is that many of the news institutions are trading on legacy reputation that is quickly running out.
If you ask me which I trust more, 60 Minutes or Glenn Greenwald, I trust GG 1000x times more. I would even say I have a negative opinion of 60 minutes.
There's a reason Glenn Greenwald is making crazy money on substack - its because his reporting comes off as more authentic than many 'official' news sources.
> It's not official news unless it supports an establishment narrative.
You're so close that's it's annoying that at the last second you veered off into right field. There are two different things that you're confusing. There's capital-N news which is the purview of capital-J journalists; they create a verified bone dry account of events and statements made by those involved which is more historical record than something you might read with your morning coffee. You have always been able to find troves of this style of news but it's in the archives of news sites, not on the front page.
Then there's storytelling which is what people actually want. Someone takes all the news together and, adds some context both historical and cultural, and some basic production value to create a cohesive narrative. This is a good thing! We want this because it shows us how individual events are connected and the bigger picture.
It's the difference between reading police reports and local news articles and listening to a true crime podcasts -- the latter is waaaaaay more popular.
Confused, surely. To me that conflates contrived narrative with honesty. Reinforcing an overarching cohesive narrative comes at the expense of a true and coherrent one. The difference is that cohesion is necessarily consonant, where coherrence accepts dissonance in exchange for greater fidelity, or truth, the craft of actual reporting.
People (us) want what we can use, and sometimes indeed that's just a sense of actual shared community experience, but usually, it's more concrete. Like should I move my savings into a certain sector, my odds on finding a better job, should I sell my house now or wait, do I need to move to another state to get my kids a proper education, etc. This is what people use real reporting for. Journalists are not in posession of a bigger picture, and the ones who think they are believe so at the expense of their reporting.
Capital-M Media has become the inferior good, since as soon as people have alternatives, they switch away from it.
To be fair Canadian news is still pretty diverse, it just hasn't resorted to social-media clickbait headlines (all that much). If you look at any of the "Sun" newspapers you have a pretty consistent right-wing opinion, "Star" newspapers get you a left-wing opinion, and the various local news companies are also pretty diverse.
The CBC and Globe and Mail might be boring / establishment, but is that a bad thing?
A real news business, one that publishes non-fiction content about current events that people want to read in exchange for subscriptions and advertiser dollars, is probably too fringe to be considered News at this point, because what most people really want is not what is officially approved as good for them. It's not official news unless it supports an establishment narrative, and somehow journalists and editors have come to believe they have official credentials unrelated to the truth and quality of their work that are deserving of some kind of recognition, and even deference.
I don't even see this question of whether the NYTimes and other publishers might be compromised by FB money and others as a point of contention. It's like everyone already knows, but they're wrestling with whether they can tell people themselves.
> As Doug Reynolds, the managing partner for the West Virginia newspapers suing Facebook and Google for damages, told me, “If the future of this industry is that we’re dependent on their goodwill, then we don’t have an independent press anymore.”
Indeed.