I think the assumption that journalists write controversial content for clicks is mostly wrong. I think they largely do it to assert influence on the narrative that makes up shared mainstream/tribe reality, something that neither blasé nor universally-derided work accomplishes
-
-
The best PR person I ever worked with said to me, "there is really only one great bias the press has...and that's that there IS a story."
-
If they're lucky they have to deliver a certain amount of work to fulfill a contract, even worse if they have to pitch it. No one wants to work for weeks on an investigative piece only to come to the conclusion that there's "no there there". It's almost like losing a paycheck.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
«“Too good to check” used to be a warning, now it’s a business model»https://www.americanpressinstitute.org/need-to-know/up-for-debate/good-check-used-warning-now-business-model/ …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
A very interesting take. It does negate the idea of a conspiracy since journalism would then turn out more intelligent graduates.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
A booming economy produces more fakes. People care a lot more about trust when their life's at stake.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.