top | item 26419900

(no title)

monch1962 | 5 years ago

It _usually_ makes sense to optimise for engagement, particularly in the US where there's no state-funded media outlet (cue discussion about socialism that will be ignored). The UK has the BBC, Australia has the ABC, and both are state funded media outlets that aren't (at least overtly) driven by views. I'm sure their funding largely depends on how many people are consuming their product, but it's not as though some editor is going to be fired that afternoon if their "Oprah/Meghan" story loses out to the Murdoch equivalent. I'd be curious to compare how A/B testing works for state-funded media vs pay-for-access media outlets

discuss

jordan_curve|5 years ago

There’s absolutely state-funded media in the U.S. It just doesn’t encompass as much as those in the UK or Australia.

C-Span is a good example.

lwf|5 years ago

The Cable-Satellite Public Affairs Network[1] isn't publicly funded, no.

PBS, NPR, and, via the Corporation for Public Broadcasting[2], lots of individual, independent local radio and television stations.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-SPAN [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation_for_Public_Broadca...

refurb|5 years ago

Based on the amount of click-bait from the BBC that gets posted to HN, I’m not sure your state funded option is much better.

I know the CBC in Canada is absolute crap - 80% of the reporting is sensationalistic and for the past 4 years has been focused on the nuances of Trump - not exactly relevant to Canada. At least not deserving of more coverage than domestic issues.

ls-lah_33|5 years ago

The BBC gets roughly a quarter of its income from commercial sources

https://www.icaew.com/insights/viewpoints-on-the-news/2021/j...