At the local level newspapers weren’t beholden to business interests to the extent they are now since there were much fewer ways to advertise to potential customers. At the national level there was sufficient competition in media ownership to allow for real investigative reporting. Now that media has consolidated they don’t have to try as hard to attract viewers/readers. Also consolidation in the corporate world means exposing wrongdoing in one brand means pissing off that brand’s owner who also owns many other brands. In the past exposing shenanigans in a cereal brand didn’t mean that you lost out on advertising from a whole slew non related food brands.
There was also more a desire to serve public interests prior to Reagan getting rid of the rules on media consolidation. It wasn’t perfect but it was much better than what we have now. News media is much more beholden to corporate interests now than in the past.
Cable has always been ad-funded as far as I can tell.
Big print newspapers were mostly independent and subscriber-funded, so they answered to their subs rather than advertisers.
The Economist is still independent and subscriber-funded. But, most sub-driven publications now have to fight tooth and nail to stay above water, so the writing needs to be tailored towards engagement/clicks :/
skhunted|2 years ago
There was also more a desire to serve public interests prior to Reagan getting rid of the rules on media consolidation. It wasn’t perfect but it was much better than what we have now. News media is much more beholden to corporate interests now than in the past.
kdmccormick|2 years ago
Big print newspapers were mostly independent and subscriber-funded, so they answered to their subs rather than advertisers.
The Economist is still independent and subscriber-funded. But, most sub-driven publications now have to fight tooth and nail to stay above water, so the writing needs to be tailored towards engagement/clicks :/