At the same time, maybe smaller independent news outfits that are run by at most a handful of people, that cover more local news might be able to make it work if they keep their expenses low.
Even sophisticated people like paulg make comments like "why doesn't someone just make factual news".
It suggests to me that thinking about epistemology and marketing is a learned skill.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitstrips
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Brown_(journalist)
Maybe the article title should be “Journalists that have successful exits in non-journalism startups should invest in journalism startups”
There's a reason people prefer listening to the guest to speak instead of being taught to think and live by white journo women.
Yes: it’s confirming their priors and not challenging any preconceived notions.
Don’t get me wrong, I think Rogan is fine but it’s largely an entertainment podcast. The idea that it’s a replacement for hard news doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
What you are referring to is called branding and this particular form appeals to your sensibilities.
All the top media outlets try to use a similar brand. Ultimately you are consuming a second hand synthesis woven into popular narratives, not anything more true.
But there are a great many serious people who take pride in speaking the truth and exposing reality that people don't want to hear. It's beyond cynical to think that every single one of them is fake.
Seriousness and truthfulness are separate axis. Serious branding gives the appearance of authority.
> frauds like all the folks at FOX
You will find they have similar credentials as the outlets you enjoy. In fact, they probably used to work there.
> every single one of them is fake.
It's not they they are fake. It's that nobody has a monopoly on truth or methods of finding it.
Can journalists provide valuable information? Certainly. But they have their own systematic and personal biased. In particular, they are an extremely tight knit community performing for their peers.
Joe's podcast is obviously goofy as can be. But I actually prefer being explicit about your biases, instead of faux objectivity.
That's moving the goal posts into the parking lot. Joe Rogan and James Risen (as an example) are both fallible human beings capable of bias and errors, but one of them is 1000X better at eliciting and distributing truth than the other. And it's not by dint of their relative credentials, it's because one of them is smarter, more dedicated, more moral, has studied their craft, worked at it for decades, puts in hours of legwork, has the courage to risk their personal safety for the good of the reading public and the other is a drug-addled meathead who is interested in making money. Not that you're not allowed to enjoy his show, but it's purely entertainment and if you learn anything that happens to be true it's purely by coincidence.
I don't believe anyone sees Rogan as a journalist or anything along those lines.