"Consider the whinging by conservatives about how they are treated by the media..."
I struggle to understand why there isn't some conservatively (or even generally neutrally) oriented media option available at the mass media level. Given the (still) 50+% audience that is out there thirsting for real "fair and balanced" news and commentary…
"Consider the whinging by conservatives about how they are treated by the media..."
I struggle to understand why there isn't some conservatively (or even generally neutrally) oriented media option available at the mass media level. Given the (still) 50+% audience that is out there thirsting for real "fair and balanced" news and commentary, it has to be seen as a major money making opportunity for / by someone.
While Elon Musk and "X" are promising, I fear neither he nor "they" are as conservatively oriented as many of us might like. Plus ego! Or he has still not found a suitable management team to run it? (Compared to Space X and Tesla). National Review is apparently subsidized by Oldsmar; Epoch Times, The Federalist, Bari Weiss, Michael Shallenberger, and City Journal are growing but not recognized market leaders in any sense.
In the past we might spend (say) $150/year for print newspapers and believed we were getting a reasonable exposure to reality, or understood that the bias was mostly on the op-ed page, not in every news article. Now I spend about $500/year for a complement of Substack and other web based sources with which I feel comfortable, but I also recognize their media reach is limited to (maybe) 10 million people max and that I am now marinated in an info bubble of my own preferences. From this perspective most of the lying I see in the MSM is lying by omission of coverage, as much as purposeful false reporting by commission. But that is all they need to succeed.
Plus, to access my bubble I pay $600/year for internet connections and $600+/year for my intentionally limited cable equivalent input streams. Not sure just how much a subscription for a decent balanced media source would be worth to me, but maybe $200/year? But I am a cheapskate compared to those who pay $5 for a latte. What am I missing??
(1) Collapsing business model. The old-style media business model is collapsing because of the collapse of advertising streams.
(2) Network inertia in a localised media market. US media markets tended to favour just one local newspaper, which were subject to opinion shifts among their feed-in graduates. The UK had much more of a national media market, so has done much better at having a more politically diverse range of newspapers.
(3) Resistance. The “quality” papers captured elite networking and the clickbait dynamics of online media encourages media siloing. Makes it hard for new players to break in.
I'm surprised you didn't mention massive competition, as well. We're in a period where legacy media is being competed out of nonexistence. I expect in another 10-20 years if current trends continue we will see more conservative, larger media groups coalesce. Perhaps out of groups of substacks like yourself, N.S. Lyons, and others.
"Consider the whinging by conservatives about how they are treated by the media..."
I struggle to understand why there isn't some conservatively (or even generally neutrally) oriented media option available at the mass media level. Given the (still) 50+% audience that is out there thirsting for real "fair and balanced" news and commentary, it has to be seen as a major money making opportunity for / by someone.
While Elon Musk and "X" are promising, I fear neither he nor "they" are as conservatively oriented as many of us might like. Plus ego! Or he has still not found a suitable management team to run it? (Compared to Space X and Tesla). National Review is apparently subsidized by Oldsmar; Epoch Times, The Federalist, Bari Weiss, Michael Shallenberger, and City Journal are growing but not recognized market leaders in any sense.
In the past we might spend (say) $150/year for print newspapers and believed we were getting a reasonable exposure to reality, or understood that the bias was mostly on the op-ed page, not in every news article. Now I spend about $500/year for a complement of Substack and other web based sources with which I feel comfortable, but I also recognize their media reach is limited to (maybe) 10 million people max and that I am now marinated in an info bubble of my own preferences. From this perspective most of the lying I see in the MSM is lying by omission of coverage, as much as purposeful false reporting by commission. But that is all they need to succeed.
Plus, to access my bubble I pay $600/year for internet connections and $600+/year for my intentionally limited cable equivalent input streams. Not sure just how much a subscription for a decent balanced media source would be worth to me, but maybe $200/year? But I am a cheapskate compared to those who pay $5 for a latte. What am I missing??
(1) Collapsing business model. The old-style media business model is collapsing because of the collapse of advertising streams.
(2) Network inertia in a localised media market. US media markets tended to favour just one local newspaper, which were subject to opinion shifts among their feed-in graduates. The UK had much more of a national media market, so has done much better at having a more politically diverse range of newspapers.
(3) Resistance. The “quality” papers captured elite networking and the clickbait dynamics of online media encourages media siloing. Makes it hard for new players to break in.
I'm surprised you didn't mention massive competition, as well. We're in a period where legacy media is being competed out of nonexistence. I expect in another 10-20 years if current trends continue we will see more conservative, larger media groups coalesce. Perhaps out of groups of substacks like yourself, N.S. Lyons, and others.
True, but the question was why new players have not replaced failing media behemoths.