Bringing new management team from right of center media. Not clear exactly why this is happening but we can speculate. First is that they are making a business decision to try to draw in more readers from the right who don't trust so-called mainstream media. If that is the motivation, it is a fool's errand. Both the New York Times and the Washington Post already try to cater to them and it is never enough. Those that don't trust the mainstream media don't accept reality. They won't ever trust any reporting that accurately reflects externally verifiable reality. It may also be a business decision from Jeff Bezos, worried about future regulatory oversight. So far there's no evidence he has ever interfered in the Post reporting, and it's helpful to have a billionaire subsidizing otherwise unprofitable reporting in a time of difficult media economics. So on the whole it is likely positive that he owns the Post. But you do worry about conflicts due to understandable concern about unscrupulous regulatory threats to shape reporting.
I respect the move of Bezos (who I loathe for what he has done to small business) to protect the free press with his purchase of the WaPo. My guess is this is looking to do what Tampa said, a fool’s errand to drive some of the half of the country that wont read real news by packaging it more conservative. WSJ is a right wing opinion arm but they really do report the news and they really dont report non-facts even though they sensationalize a bit to the right. WaPo can carve out something like that in the non-financial news, maybe?
This will probably bite them in the ass. Unless the WaPo goes full wingnut right, it won't be enough to lure the right-wingers. And if they just move a little right of center, at best they will gain some conservative readers but lose liberal readers. When you read the comments on a conservative opinion piece, you invariably see angry liberal subscribers threatening to cancel their subscriptions.
You guys really think we dont get slanted reporting from a media that is like 90% Democrat? I know it gets exaggerated, but lets not act like the only motivation is pure facts. How about just move to accuracy with no bias and stop trying to move left or right?
I am not sure you’re picking a fight with the right people. Almost everyone above said a right wing lean to factual reporting is fine but probably not marketable because right wingers like fake news. There was no intent to challenge the legitimacy of right leaning institutions that report facts which is basically just the WSJ unless i am leaving someone out. The Washington Examiner is a joke as is the New York Post.
Why? 1.Because I dared to point out that media should not be trying to cater to EITHER side? 2. I pointed out the gross disproportion in political leanings in our media?
When I hear "move further to the right" these days I just interpret that as "be more willing to lend credence to popular conspiracy theories." I don't see WaPo going completely off the deep end though and I'm willing to see how it plays out. If the end result is more conservatives trusting WaPo for news then it may end up being a good thing.
It would be nice if we, as a country, could agree to incorporate a media bias chart for those interested in rational discussion. Pick a source in the middle three columns and discard the rest. Slant is one thing. Lies and intentionally editing out relevant information goes beyond slant into propaganda. Media Bias | AllSides
I've seen those extremist comments, too, proving that the left can be as intractable as the right. An old saying normally associated with sex might be of use: "Variety is the spice of life."
The issue with AllSides is that it is dependent on public perception/input. The true crux of the issue is there is no consensus on what constitutes left v. right.
Every time I see one of these charts I think the people putting them together are pretty stupid and have no idea what words mean. Like the NYT opinion page which features Ross Douthat, Bret Stephens and multiple conservatives (and almost no one that could be called a 'leftist' other than Bouie) is in the same category as a long-form socialist magazine like Jacobin. Its just moronic. Anyways I'm not sure why people are so concerned about viewpoint bias instead of actual quality.
I get tired of this being accepted as true. What's the basis? Ad revenue generating sources? Clicks? Views? We all know the scope of Fox "News", for just one example. Also, the sites that get labelled as "Left" or Democrat" may or may not have such a bias - think CNN- but they are most certainly NOT outright purveyors of actual lies and falsehoods, as are nearly all "right-wing" media sources. IMO this false narrative has gone on for so long that we (as a nation) are now willing to tolerate outright lying and propaganda apparatuses from the right because.....other media has a leftward bias? Edit : And I haven't even addressed the fact that the lying felon in charge of the Trumppublican Party will go so far as to actually castigate right-wing news for its coverage not being supportive enough......and threaten them. It's downright preposterous that that would be accepted by any grown adult. But....the biggest media problem to so many is something specious, or cut from whole cloth, like "90% of media is leftward."
And I’m sure it means just that at times, but I do also think there is potential for the second type of meaning, where conservative viewpoints are given a more equal place at the table. It has to be true that one’s perspective tints their views of the world, and if so, the only way I can see to achieve objectivity is to include a diversity of viewpoints.
Agree. The NYT opinion page should be 'left' (the 2nd column of the chart), not far left (the first col). I wonder if these ratings are bending over backwards to try to seem impartial.
What does that even mean in practice though? Most media is already driven by conservative viewpoints in what it chooses to cover.
