this post was submitted on 03 Feb 2024
477 points (96.1% liked)

politics

18894 readers
2971 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The purchase of The Baltimore Sun is further proof that conservative billionaires understand the power of media control. Why don’t their liberal counterparts get it?

You have no doubt seen the incredibly depressing news about the incredibly depressing purchase of The Baltimore Sun by the incredibly depressing David Smith, chairman of Sinclair Broadcast Group, the right-wing media empire best known for gobbling up local television news operations and forcing local anchors to spout toxic Big Brother gibberish like this.

The Sun was once a great newspaper. I remember reading, once upon a time, that it had sprung more foreign correspondents into action across the planet than any American newspaper save The New York Times and The Washington Post. It had eight foreign bureaus at one point, all of which were shuttered by the Tribune Company by 2006. But the Sun’s real triumphs came in covering its gritty, organic city. And even well after its glory days, it still won Pulitzers—as recently as 2020, for taking down corrupt Mayor Catherine Pugh, who served a stretch in prison thanks to the paper.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

Wow. Welcome to 2002. No shit.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 months ago (2 children)

How are these acquisitions making them enough money to bother with given the state of news outlets in general? Arguably among the reasons they're able to happen at all is that many newsrooms are struggling to even remain operational, resulting in their owners selling them off to cut their losses.

Yet even after acquisition, have there been any indications that the new owners are doing any better with them financially?

[–] [email protected] 11 points 7 months ago

Opinions are cheap. So cheap people will offer them up on the internet for free.

Journalism is expensive. Gotta chase down leads that go nowhere. Gotta work hard to confirm a source, because you don't want to be just printing rumours, right?

Right-wing media doesn't need to pay the cost of journalism. They print opinion and rumours. So a right-wing paper is cheaper to run than a paper that has journalists working for it.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 7 months ago

I assume they're willing to take the loss to help preserve the political landscape that allows them to protect and grow their financial interests in other markets. They may not really care if the media outlets are profitable.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago
[–] [email protected] 45 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Why don't their liberal counterparts get it?

They do, but they support it. People need to realize "liberalism" is still right wing, and right wing is always anti-people/pro-monopolization.

We have no leftist presence or voice in America, and it really shows as democrats keep marching further right to court "centrists" that are never going to vote for them.

Bright side - more people seem to realize mid right or far right isn't the choiciest of choices, but downside is it's far too late.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Demand free speech rights for leftists. That's literally how the conservative takeover started: demanding free speech rights for conservatives, leading to the Telecommunications Act which empowered this Sinclair slime.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 7 months ago (1 children)

My old polisci professors would probably argue that there are right wing, left wing, and centrist forms of liberalism.

The political compass is an arguably silly example of this, but there is a point that being on one end of a social spectrum doesn’t mean you’re on the same end of an economic spectrum.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

Individual rights - state/federal authority Welfare - slavery with extra steps Individual well-being - collective economic power Local direct democracy - nationwide democracy of the peerage Isolation - global influence

There's so many ways to slice it. These are off the cuff - but it most certainly isn't a 1 or 2 axis space

load more comments
view more: next ›