Display:
My point was, who is driving who in 'sustaining conventional wisdom'? It's a symbiotic relationship, imo.

Yes, owners (outright like the Barclays thru Press Holdings, or publicly traded like Murdoch) do choose editors, and thus editorials (and more) - but the slant of the paper has to have an audience. I don't think content is a wrapper for delivering editorials, it's a wrapper for advertising products and services. The 'conventional wisdom' is marketing ;-)

But I know we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Mon Jun 29th, 2009 at 02:48:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
We've agreed to disagree for some time on this. ;)

But I still don't see (in your picture) why wealthy businessfolk like to own newspapers if it's such a constraining and unprofitable deal - unless there's another side to this, which is influence in the political debate.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Jun 29th, 2009 at 04:41:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It is the difference between then and now. Ask Conrad or Rupert - it was a licence to print money 'then'. Now major newspapers are not profitable or enough profitable. The political influence is all that remains, and even that was more important in the corridors than on the street corner.

I see most of the major media owners as engaged in a charade of influence.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Mon Jun 29th, 2009 at 05:06:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series