You can login if you already have an account or register by clicking the button below.
Registering is free and all you need is a username and password. We never ask you for your e-mail.
When influential sites start to falter they will be turned into corporate propaganda machines
This has already happened. Started in the 1960's when news programs started getting funding from advertisers. Reliance on ads means that funding comes from viewership base. Increasing, or at least holding, that base has been done through inflammatory headlines, carefully slanted articles, and scare tactics. This is not new, nor is it unique to the web. Ads are the root of the problem, not the cure.
Corporate sponsored "tailored" content, ads, or pay out your pocket, choose.
Does it matter? All receive funds based on the amount of eyes the can put in front of their content. Which means all will inevitably result in the same content we see now.
It matters to my wallet and free information. Option 1 gives corps too much power, and option 3 I can't afford. Option 2 will work if we can get "clean" ads. I don't mind ads alone in the slightest, but the tracking bullshit is a no go. Ads pay for what you like but won't pay for. Newspapers would have never got off the ground wiyh out ads, same for OTA TV. They in of themselves aren't evil, its how they are used...
But again, ad revenue is a major cause of the problem of misleading/slanted information available in any "news" media- TV, Radio, print, or web. Ads pay more when more people look at them. It's why Super Bowl ads are so expensive. If, for example, USA Today is to maintain ad revenue then they have to keep people reading their paper or site. And the best way to get eyes on the content isn't factual reporting of meaningful events.
So it becomes about whipping up drama. Scandals that are really a lot less dire than they're made out to be. Scare tactic headlines above articles with lots of claims and no proof or even real supporting evidence. It's all about telling people what they already want to hear so that they continue consuming so that the ads pay more.
Viewership-based revenue doesn't lead to quality news. It leads to gimmicks designed to get viewers.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] SteelKidney ago
This has already happened. Started in the 1960's when news programs started getting funding from advertisers. Reliance on ads means that funding comes from viewership base. Increasing, or at least holding, that base has been done through inflammatory headlines, carefully slanted articles, and scare tactics. This is not new, nor is it unique to the web. Ads are the root of the problem, not the cure.
Does it matter? All receive funds based on the amount of eyes the can put in front of their content. Which means all will inevitably result in the same content we see now.
[–] Ghetto_Shitlord ago
It matters to my wallet and free information. Option 1 gives corps too much power, and option 3 I can't afford. Option 2 will work if we can get "clean" ads. I don't mind ads alone in the slightest, but the tracking bullshit is a no go. Ads pay for what you like but won't pay for. Newspapers would have never got off the ground wiyh out ads, same for OTA TV. They in of themselves aren't evil, its how they are used...
[–] SteelKidney ago
But again, ad revenue is a major cause of the problem of misleading/slanted information available in any "news" media- TV, Radio, print, or web. Ads pay more when more people look at them. It's why Super Bowl ads are so expensive. If, for example, USA Today is to maintain ad revenue then they have to keep people reading their paper or site. And the best way to get eyes on the content isn't factual reporting of meaningful events.
So it becomes about whipping up drama. Scandals that are really a lot less dire than they're made out to be. Scare tactic headlines above articles with lots of claims and no proof or even real supporting evidence. It's all about telling people what they already want to hear so that they continue consuming so that the ads pay more.
Viewership-based revenue doesn't lead to quality news. It leads to gimmicks designed to get viewers.