Reporting costs money. If you can control the budget, then you can control which stories are prioritized and which aren't. If you own the paper, you can control the editorial section. Pretending that these tools can't be or aren't being used to influence the population is naive.
> Pretending that these tools can't be or aren't being used to influence the population is naive.
Fortunately that's not what we're talking about, at least not so broadly.
But saying the stories are artificial or plants directly from the Bloomberg campaign - basically saying "ignore anything to do with his competitors from Bloomberg News because it's obviously at the direction of the chairman". That's what I don't buy.
Another example which would be crossing a line is any reporters getting silenced or stories getting squashed.
Even worse is the idea there's a broader conspiracy to protect the 1% class that Bezos et al and all of the big newspaper teams are engaged in is an even bigger yawn.
If we're just talking about hiring people with a certain bias and budgeting then eh.. I really don't see the problem with that, which as you mentioned every paper or editor/management would be guilty of it. That's why we have more than one newspaper.
I'd rather judge each story on their individual merits, with the obvious consideration of the source being a factor.
Reporting costs money. If you can control the budget, then you can control which stories are prioritized and which aren't. If you own the paper, you can control the editorial section. Pretending that these tools can't be or aren't being used to influence the population is naive.