I remember a couple years ago listening to a round-table discussion on NPR where a guest offhandedly said that Fox was not a news organization. Immediately, the host was like: "Whoa whoa whoa! We don't say things like that!" (It's almost like using the term liar to describe a politician. Third rail stuff.) But, IMO it's close to the truth. By my definition, Fox, CNN and MSNBC are "newsertainment" organizations. Not news organizations. HuffPo is the same. It just might be that for-profit news cannot be quality in this day and age. Personally, I think a quality for-profit news organization could work, but only if they cater to a smaller select audience. Unfortunately, if the organization is publicly traded, it won't take long until a CEO ruins it for more money.
But let's be honest, its not like old media were good until the stock model ruined their business. Hearst wasn't exactly an idealist who wanted to enlighten the masses.
- But let's be honest, its not like old media were good until the stock model ruined their business. Hearst wasn't exactly an idealist who wanted to enlighten the masses.
The worst, worst part is that our leadership in this country uses these media outlets as serious platforms to spread their message. They give credence to this garbage.
What I am writing will touch on some of this. I'd like to hear what else you think about it though.
Seriously, I would describe it in short and say, If you are truly interested in what Hubski is, you have to Hubski.