Originally posted by stanguilles7
Originally posted by Maxmars
I am not among those who believe that there is no difference between making a living and making a killing. No one "needs" work for free... and no one
"needs" to become obscenely wealthy. Compensation implies balance. It is the present imbalance that makes for the loss of sustainability.
What is the present imbalance you speak of, specifically?
Which specific aspects of a news room should be forced to curtail their compensation? Who in the online news world or publication world should be
taking the hit, in your opinion?
Not meaning to be argumentative, I will answer. But I make no apology for the verbiage I will use, as the explanation you request will not be
compressed into a soundbite.
The imbalance to which I refer is present in a manner that makes it evident if one considers:
Commerce is the aim of today's elite. Commerce, and the exploitation of revenue streams is highly profitable, and incidentally, very politically
relevant to a commerce-dominated political doctrine (making it akin to self-serving).
The trend of amassing media vehicles into conglomerates of revenue generating streams has commercial value; but is contrary to the institutions'
mandate. "News" is NOT entertainment. News is supposed to be exactly what the word implies 'new facts the public should know.' It is subjective
only in the gray area between what the public should know, and what they have a "right" to know.
Unlike some of our fellow members, I do not believe the domain of the Press is to disseminate truth. I believe it's mandate is to disseminate facts.
Facts, are non-negotiable, self-evident and logically separate from editorialization. Although facts can be mischaracterized, misrepresented, and
purposefully corrupted... reporting "the facts" with PR (or propaganda) techniques makes the act immediately remediable (or irrelevant) if the
audience is well-enough informed and empowered to recognize the act.
The imbalance comes from the power of the 'kingpins' of what they call "News" to influence and control content, delivery, and editorial discipline.
(The evidence of this is in the 'owners' insistence that today's "news" is an "entertainment product" as opposed to a source of valid information
intended to inform and empower our citizens.) This development was facilitated by those in the regulatory and oversight business because it was
politically attractive to have allies that control information flow.
Meanwhile the discipline of journalism became overshadowed by the expedient political agendas that 'sole owners' could exert over the institution.
All the while serving their commercial aims as the primary drive behind any development within the institution - purists would call it corruption,
idealist recognize it as a consequence of greed. I feel it is a simple imbalance of forcing the institution to perform a function for which it was
Who should "take the hit?" There is no real reason anyone should have to .... just as there is no valid reason anyone should necessarily "get rich"
in the news business. As customary, we can see that institutions run by businessmen for profit eventually decline in direct value to the society of
which they are part... e.g. hospitals, security forces, and others, including the Press.
The phenomenon of people congregating in a place like this to scrutinize the information which is disseminated to us is further evidence of the defect
present in this "unsustainable" model which relies on proprietary control of information as a commodity.
If I had to "decide" who should take the hit by removing the "make a killing" versus "make a living" imbalance, it would likely start with the power -
"board" members and "corporate leadership" which takes the simple task of disseminating news and converts into opinion influence and extraneous
business and political opportunity development. It appears that those super-citizens cannot (or do not want to) avoid the hazard of "using" the
institution for purposes other than to inform.
If, by some magic, there were no press, the people would create one out of necessity. If the press is a social necessity, it is wrong to allow it to
be monopolized, and made into a tool for those who override the principles of journalism, in favor of the principles of commerce.
Of course, you will disagree. But that is your prerogative. Thanks for hearing me out. If I have flaws in my reasoning I hope you will engage me
again ... perhaps together, we can craft a new vision of how to reconcile the evident problem this schism creates.
edit on 25-5-2012 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)