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)

PatrickforB

(15,125 posts)
Sun Oct 6, 2024, 10:38 AM Oct 6

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
Thank you EverHopeful Oct 6 #1
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
Yup, my friend thinks the NYT is gospel....... a kennedy Oct 6 #4
Calling it a horse race would indicate that they would promote the losing side to keep things even cutroot Oct 6 #3
Yup FHRRK Oct 6 #33
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
Ochs-Sulzberge family holds 90% of the voting shares of the NYT Voltaire2 Oct 6 #7
Money, money and more money. That's the point even with supermajority owned companies. paleotn Oct 6 #24
So good! Thank you! sarchasm Oct 6 #8
Sure, if you wish. n/t PatrickforB Oct 6 #57
Spot on!! Posting on Facebook. h2ebits Oct 6 #9
See "NY Times finally details Trump's cognitive decline in scathing article" Towlie Oct 6 #10
And how long did it take the NYT to come around to this point? erronis Oct 6 #13
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
Yes, and it only took them nine years. hatrack Oct 7 #61
You wrapped up the major points very succinctly. Thanks! erronis Oct 6 #11
SAY IT!!! Montauk6 Oct 6 #12
Yeah that works temporarily Farmer-Rick Oct 6 #14
Great idea! Wild blueberry Oct 6 #15
Great post about policy Felicita Oct 6 #16
One of the best posts I've read recently. BattleRow Oct 6 #23
It is also why billionaires buy news organizations. They profit in many other ways than just ratings or clicks/ KPN Oct 6 #17
More circus than bread nowadays... BattleRow Oct 6 #20
They sure are toxic waste. Dave Bowman Oct 6 #18
Great comments DENVERPOPS Oct 6 #19
After Project 2025.. BattleRow Oct 6 #21
Good one DENVERPOPS Oct 6 #40
Oh,YES! And for a slightly off topic..another BattleRow Oct 6 #41
Absolutely agree Blue Full Moon Oct 6 #22
Thank you for a great post. You are an excellent teacher. Timeflyer Oct 6 #25
Most excellent post! Thank you megapuzzler Oct 6 #26
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
This message was self-deleted by its author Dan Oct 6 #28
Exactly. HappyLarge Oct 6 #29
Absolutely! And welcome to our little party. paleotn Oct 6 #31
Fairness Doctrine was just icing. Dodge v. Ford Motor Co. paleotn Oct 6 #30
"AND Reagan killing the Fairness Doctrine back in '87" It is amazing how much damage Reagan did to the USA Escurumbele Oct 6 #32
Yes ... add to that the economic realities of the newspaper business FakeNoose Oct 6 #34
I recall when Seymour Hersh worked for them. BattleRow Oct 6 #42
He doesn't get much play because he went off the deep end. Embracing conspiracy theories, Putin, tritsofme Oct 6 #47
We all have our opinions as to when BattleRow Oct 6 #48
So you think the pro-Putin nonsense, making excuses for Trump is...good journalism? tritsofme Oct 6 #49
I am unaware of that which you speak BattleRow Oct 6 #50
There has been lots written about his fall. tritsofme Oct 6 #51
I certainly will review this. Thank you. BattleRow Oct 6 #53
I like Maines approach. infullview Oct 6 #35
You make very good points. But. markodochartaigh Oct 6 #36
I would say it isn't just the cynicism misanthrope Oct 6 #45
Like Juvenal said two thousand years ago, markodochartaigh Oct 6 #46
Sidenote: Fairness doctrine only applied to over-the-air broadcasts. thesquanderer Oct 6 #37
Granted but talk radio was the most pervasive method misanthrope Oct 6 #44
Social media in particular is designed to give us more of littlemissmartypants Oct 6 #38
I cancelled my NYT subscription back in 2015 due to Clinton email coverage LetMyPeopleVote Oct 6 #39
Saddest of all is that none of this is hidden knowledge misanthrope Oct 6 #43
I enjoy the Times bif Oct 6 #52
Dodge v Ford, Just Jerome Oct 6 #54
100%! n/t PatrickforB Oct 6 #59
Take the money out of elections and the MSM's motivation and actions become irrelevant. pecosbob Oct 6 #55
Great post. raccoon Oct 6 #56
Agree ScubaSteve Oct 7 #60
I am happy to rec. pandr32 Oct 7 #62
K&R, great post and I love your idea...one little rule change, and some tweaks to the SC and their c-rational Oct 7 #63
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Regarding the New York Ti...