Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)Regarding the New York Times, America's 'newspaper of record.' [View all]
Warning: I'm going to be talking about policy!I cancelled my NYT subscription a couple of months ago due to their 'Biden old, Biden old, Biden old' drumbeat.
Because of the legal doctrine of shareholder primacy, established through a MI Supreme Court ruling back in 1919 against Henry Ford in favor of the Dodge brothers, AND Reagan killing the Fairness Doctrine back in '87, the fiduciary responsibility of executives at these publicly traded 'news' organizations is ONLY to generate shareholder profits, with NOTHING...
I repeat NOTHING requiring them to report the truth...
virtually all of the reporting we get from ABC (Disney), CBS (Paramount), NBC (Comcast), NYT (Ochs-Sulzberger), CNN (Warner Brothers Discovery) is ALWAYS going to be BIASED in such a way as to generate and maximize shareholder PROFITS.
This is why we have a 'horserace' folks. It is better for PROFITS.
This is why Trump is being 'sanewashed'. It is better for PROFITS.
This is why all the lies he and Vance tell are being glossed over. Again better for PROFITS.
And finally, it is why X, Fox and other right-wing 'news' sources keep their audience is a complete bubble of conspiracy theories. Because they can (no Fairness Doctrine) and because it is good for PROFITS.
There are two major PROFIT centers here:
1. Ad revenue based on ratings, and
2. Campaign ads - due to Citizens United, we have THE most EXPENSIVE political campaigns in the world. Billions of dollars.
You want to change that?
One little rule-change in corporate governance - instead of the interests of shareholders being held above everything else, we could require an expansion of the fiduciary responsibility of media executives (and every other corporate officer in a publicly traded company) to consider the interests of workers, consumers (including truth in news reporting), and the environment EQUALLY with the interests of shareholders. A stakeholder approach to corporate governance.
If we had our members of Congress legislate that, as well as making the changes required in the Supreme Court so they are no longer so partisan, and if we ENFORCED this new rule of corporate governance, we would save the republic for years to come.
Oh, and let's not forget legislation that reverses the most recent Supreme Court rulings - Dobbs, the ruling against Chevron, and Citizens United.
Then the billionaire parasites would have to play their 'long game' again to undermine the republic. Heck, with any luck it would take them fifty or sixty years to get us to the stage we're at now - the verge of a fascist dictatorship.
Oh, I know it is wonky. And as an experiment, if you have read this far, please either 'rec' this post or reply. Most people won't, I know because policy is BORING. This is why we've been so thoroughly fucked by Wall Street and the billionaire parasites. You know that, right? Look at Project 2025. BOR-ING!!! But if they put it in place, our republic will be history.
63 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
You know, I heard on MSNBC that the Trump campaign admitted they had spent millions on
PatrickforB
Oct 6
#6
NYT has an overwhelmingly high percentage of readership by Democrats. Making a profit, requires readership.
Silent Type
Oct 6
#2
Calling it a horse race would indicate that they would promote the losing side to keep things even
cutroot
Oct 6
#3
I find the NYT to be different from what you are saying here. I find nothing outrageous about their reporting or about
CTyankee
Oct 6
#5
Money, money and more money. That's the point even with supermajority owned companies.
paleotn
Oct 6
#24
No, not at all. Because it was a long time coming, and I'm considering the coverage for the entire year,
PatrickforB
Oct 6
#58
It is also why billionaires buy news organizations. They profit in many other ways than just ratings or clicks/
KPN
Oct 6
#17
Kudos to you! I used to read the NYT front to back..not the sports, and loved it. Gave up on them a few yrs back
PortTack
Oct 6
#27
"AND Reagan killing the Fairness Doctrine back in '87" It is amazing how much damage Reagan did to the USA
Escurumbele
Oct 6
#32
He doesn't get much play because he went off the deep end. Embracing conspiracy theories, Putin,
tritsofme
Oct 6
#47
So you think the pro-Putin nonsense, making excuses for Trump is...good journalism?
tritsofme
Oct 6
#49
I cancelled my NYT subscription back in 2015 due to Clinton email coverage
LetMyPeopleVote
Oct 6
#39