Originally Posted by TDog
You obviously don't want to engage in a serious discussion. I know precisely what I'm talking about because I was part of the industry. Most of my examples would be considered political in nature because I covered hard news, but I could point out that I was given -- earned -- a raise and a promotion to a bigger newspaper in my chain after I wrote stories about corruption and financial problems in a Nevada casino that subsequently ceased being a major advertiser.
I know what I am talking about. I worked in newspapers for decades working in a number of chains, in part because of the way chains were buying and selling newspapers. I guessing you were doing other things at the time.
I don't know if any of that is relevant to my point that if an Internet blogger has a financial incentive to get as many hits as he can to a posting, that he does not have an obligation to the truth, especially since people will click on outrageous things they know not to be the truth.
And it has nothing to do with my point that an Internet blog that does not specify a source for a fact is not a credible source, especially when I hold newspapers to the same standard.
Oh I see. Because I don't submit to your demand that I listen to the power$ that be, I don't want to have a serious conversation.
It's nice that you were able break a story like that. But a single advertiser versus policy that affects conglomerates and media moguls are not the same thing. I mean...hell, today's reality has PBS not showing documentaries because they make the Koch Brothers look bad. There's a serious lack of any sort of credibility to the media today, even in places where you'd never expect it.