By people who believe in journalistic integrity. That should be the selling point and what people want to buy. However, given how much news is actually commentary, people want to be told what to believe.
Cronkite was getting 30 million viewers I believe and they didn’t have DVRs or ways to fast forward. Crowder is part of the problem. He is extremely limited in knowledge and how to present ideas. He isn’t a journalist or intellectual. He is a provocateur and entertainer.
All of that should be stuff is utopian nonsense. Either news outlets operate for profit, which can’t help but compromise “journalistic integrity”, or they are funded by the government, which compromises “journalistic integrity”. We don’t live in a perfect world.
It’s a pretty fair statement that the media, at large, has become increasingly willing to compromise journalistic integrity in exchange for profit in many people’s lifetimes. It’s not a dick move to expect them to keep it to a minimum.
That doesn’t exactly answer the question. Somebody’s gotta pay for it somehow. Who? And how?
As a follow-up, who gets to be the great arbiter of journalistic integrity? Surely not the people themselves like we have today, not with the amount of information we have access to. How can anyone be expected to navigate all of the bad information and arrive at objective truth? We need to be shown what’s right by THE RIGHT PEOPLE. Like a Ministry of Truth or something like that, right?
The ship has sailed. Nightly news won’t ever be that dominant again. Apples to oranges comparison. Crowder is a comedian. He’s like a conservative Daily Show, but he actually comes up with a good joke every now and then. It was just an example of a political media outlet, just like the Daily Show, that’s reaching a significant bunch of people. There’s a ton of channels like that on youtube.
People who buy newspapers or watch the news via subscriptions and what advertisers spend. Advertisers won’t care about integrity or lack thereof, but if the news source is selling they will hop on board.
And who vets them? We can’t expect a population with cognitive and educational shortcomings to do it.
I asked you the same question and you didn’t answer it. Right now it is the viewers and, as of this concerted effort to deplatform Jones, tech companies. If you hop across the pond to Britain you’ve got the police actively monitoring social media for hate speech violations. If you look into China’s vetting process you might see something you like. In their case the Chinese Communist Party wisely put the Chinese Communist Party in control of the vetting process.
Bullshit. You were on a get off my lawn rant about how the legacy single source media was better when 30 million people watched the same pompous waffle every night. You used the word integrity no less than 5 times in this topic alone, and mentioned Cronkite at least twice.
As it turns out Cronkite was not a paragon of virtue or journalistic integrity. And I do not accept your nostalgia that journalism used to be better. Yellow journalism has always been a thing.
But if we want true democracy…the “if” is all important. I know, you enjoy telling people that we are a republic when they say we are a democracy. You should be interviewing college students and showing us all how dumb they are.
No, it was better when we could verify the sources. When there was a system in place to maintain integrity. Whether or not it always worked is another matter. Having hundreds of sources that don’t have to have any credentials whatsoever doesn’t make things better. In the article you posted it did mention that his bosses were upset about the conflict of interest. That shows that at least the apparatus existed.