Recent comments in /f/Documentaries

Riversntallbuildings t1_iy0v0zu wrote

It actually began back in the Regan administration with the repeal of the fairness doctrine.

The U.S. needs to modernize the fairness doctrine and make sure it gets applied to all digital “news” communication platforms, not just broadcast news.

Additionally, please support Ranked Choice and/or STAR voting methods. It’s one of the few ways we can begin reducing the power (dysfunction) of the two party system and reduce money in politics by dividing their resources across multiple qualified candidates.

0

Riversntallbuildings t1_iy0qtw3 wrote

I absolutely agree. The fairness doctrine needs to be modernized and applied to all digital communication not just broadcast communications.

We need data privacy, portability and interoperability regulations. Corporations do not get to control markets and access to information and yet that’s what we’ve allowed in so many digital examples.

Antitrust laws are woefully outdated.

I am not lulling anyone into a false sense of security or complacency with hope.

One way I believe we can make significant change is by continuing to support and expand Ranked Choice or STAR voting methods. It’s one way to reduce the power of the two party system and reduce the influence of money in politics by dividing their resources among more qualified candidates. I also think it’ll help reduce the “polling noise” that is pretty outdated and out of touch.

1

bettinafairchild t1_iy0nyz4 wrote

2

Riversntallbuildings t1_iy0m53w wrote

History doesn’t repeat itself, but it rhymes.

There was a time not too long ago where news was all local. And while I don’t disagree with you on the disparity of power with big media conglomerates, the barriers to entry for self publication and self distribution has never been lower.

1

chevymonza t1_iy0idjb wrote

US media outlets have been owned by the 1% for quite some time, although most of the propaganda was through "news" fed to stations by the gov't. Now it's Sinclair, Murdoch, Ailes, etc.

One of my relatives is an ivy-educated journalism teacher, and often asks his class to consider both sides of news stories, but he's still pro-Trump and buys into a lot of the related bullshit. I'm floored that he's apparently unaware of the history of Fox, and the control of people like Murdoch.

1

AndyC333 t1_iy0g4sa wrote

It started sooner than this. (I have not watched the documentary yet, response to comments). Source - I am 56 years old and read newspapers every day.

In the 1970’s Gannet bought up local papers, filled them with associated press news wire articles, and laid off the local reporters. The major papers (ie New York Times) followed a little later, fired most of the “reporters” to replace them with A/P wire stories and corporate funded media releases.

From “Woodward and Bernstein” took down a president it took five years for 75% of investigative reporters to be laid off.

2

nikonuser805 t1_iy07le4 wrote

The Newspaper business reminds me of the underpants gnomes in South Park. But in the case of Newspapers, the transition from the 1990s to the 2030s looks like this:

Step 1. Gather news. Print and distribute physical medium. Profit.
Step 3. Gather News. Distribute through electronic medium. Profit.

And Step 2 is the utter chaos and disastrous shitshow for those who work in the news business. This is where they are today, and no one really knows how to get to step 3.

3

bettinafairchild t1_iy06y37 wrote

Then why do you think there are so many ads you can’t find the articles? Are you only reading The National Enquirer or something? I mean, you’re just wrong about newspaper layout except cheap tabloids and the backs of papers where all the ads for prostitutes are.

3

GeoffreyArnold t1_iy0609y wrote

> It’s not dead, but it has been resting.

Naw, it's dead. When I visited the U.K. in the 1990's, I was struck at how different and politicized their mainstream news was compared to the United States. I was grateful for the objectivity we had in most American news outlets by comparison. Then, all of that started to change around 9/11 and the Bush years...and any objectivity completely went away during the Trump years. Now, our news media is far worse than what I remember about the U.K. 30 years ago. Journalism in England never got better, and I don't expect it to get better in the U.S. now either.

2

fried_clams t1_iy039yn wrote

My newspaperman father used to call all of the mergers and buyouts the "mating sounds of dinosaurs", meaning that they were going extinct. The most important factor in the decline of newspapers was the loss of readers, not subscription and newsstand revenues. They couldn't attract enough advertising revenue after a critical mass number of eyeballs moved to the Web. Newspapers kept enough advertisers, and survived the onset of radio and then TV because they offered more detailed, comprehensive and local news. They kept there circulation and ad dollars.

It is interesting that for all their history, newspapers were joined at the hip with advertising. We all just assumed that they would always stay together.

11

bigbrothersrule t1_iy000y6 wrote

It's rarely ever simple. It started with a short-sighted decision to give all content away for free. That's content that subscribers were paying for in print form, now free for the entire world to consume and/or appropriate. It didn't seem like a big deal at the time because only nerds used the internet, everyone got papers delivered, and classified ads were a cash cow. If anything, this was an extra way to sell some ads. So publishers trained consumers that their content wasn't something they ought to pay for.

Then three things changed.

  • Predictably, in 20/20 hindsight, people figured out that they could just read the newspaper earlier and free over the internet. They cancelled their paper subscription. That made the newspapers even more reliant on online advertising and classifieds.

  • Then, online advertising consolidated into, well, basically Google. All the pricing power left the papers' hands. They were doing all the work to attract eyeballs, while Google kept a larger share of the ad revenue.

  • Craigslist. It cannot be exaggerated how much that low-fi crime magnet of a website changed journalism forever. All of a sudden you could sell or advertise anything you wanted to the world for free. With the last cash cow gone, newspapers were left with a slice of Google's ad pie, and halting attempts to convince people to pay for content again.

The narrative about Wall Street and private equity is completely true, but it's only the outcome of systemic weakness that the publishers inflicted upon themselves in the '90s. The vultures only descend when it smells like death down there.

48

F1secretsauce t1_ixzwh3w wrote

Borrow and sell. It looks crazy cuz it is. There are only 6000 companies on the nyse. So if he is shorting every company then he is still short more shares then exist in the whole nyse and that’s just one hedge fund in 2021. But the game is called short and distort right? So who do they hate? They fucked up and shorted the wrong companies. Like GameStop for example they are short for a decade at 2.00 and now the price is over 100. For 2 years. (Post 4 for 1 spit price it’s actually 25. And they borrowed and sold at .50 post spit price) and they need to buy billions when only 304 million real shares exist. So now they are failing to buy the shares they sold and committing crime daily to stay alive one more day. Basically The whole too big to fail crowd is over leveraged and shitting their pants rn because GameStop just built an online market place for gaming where u can sell in game items to other gamers for real money. Or sell used online games to other gamers when u are done with it. You can even sell ur own music or buy indy music on there and play it with ur GameStop wallet or transfer it to ur phone or whatever

4