100%. It’s a good example of how the media wants to entertain, not inform.
The DJIA is a price-weighted index and doesn’t track dividends, yet is somehow supposed to reflect investor sentiment.
The DJIA is a price-weighted index and doesn’t track dividends, yet is somehow supposed to reflect investor sentiment.
The media wants to not go bankrupt. It’s the customers that decide whether and how that’s possible.
I’d say that depends. Many media organizations operate without profits — or even incurring losses — in order to serve the public good, promote an ideology, engage in activism, spread misinformation, etc.
Yes, several state-run and private media organizations operate without profits or at a loss in order to spread misinformation.
> which major media operations are operating at a loss how for the public good (discounting state run) and how?
Sorry, I was unable to properly understand your question.
In any case, I never said the organizations that are not primarily concerned with chasing profits are “major” ones. I believe that applies best to lesser-well-known entities, like those who live on social media or the blogosphere. Though there are some instances of major state-run companies, even on TV and on the radio, that operate in a similar fashion.
Also, I am surely not equating the spread of misinformation with serving the public good — these are just distinct objectives that may be sought by media organizations, rather than avoiding bankruptcy.
"Chicago Sun-Times becomes nonprofit newspaper with $61 million in backing as WBEZ merger closes"
<https://www.chicagotribune.com/2022/01/31/chicago-sun-times-...>
Of newspapers operating at a loss or as philanthropies, there are the Baltimore Banner,[2] The Guardian,[3] and ProPublica,[4] which all operate as non-profits, relying on a mix of advertising, subscriptions, and philanthropy. The privately-held, for-profit Washington Post is a for-profit paper that's operated at a loss for years, and this before losing ~10% of its subscribers due to recent editorial decisions.[4][5]
There are numerous propaganda institutions (usually labeled as "think tanks") promulgating various ideologies or interests, with the Atlas Network being amongst the largest and most influential:
<https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Atlas_Network>
________________________________
Notes:
1. See for example the WSJ's coverage: "Chicago Public Media to Acquire Chicago Sun-Times, Creating a Nonprofit Local-News Powerhouse" <https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/chicago-public-media-to-acq...> archive/paywall: <https://archive.is/LP3Q6>.
2. A non-profit newspaper established in 2022: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Baltimore_Banner>.
3. A slightly dated take on 2016 turmoil at The Guardian: "Everything you need to know about the Guardian’s giant bust-up" (2026-5-18) <https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/london-life/fueding-and...> and Wikipedia's entry on the Scott Trust Limited which underwrites the paper: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Trust_Limited>.
4. ProPublica was established as a 501(c)(3) in 2007, with funding from the Sandler, Knight, MacArthur, and Ford foundations, along with the Pew Charitable Trusts, Carnegie Corporation, and Atlantic Philanthropies: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProPublica>.
5. "The Washington Post publisher disclosed the paper lost $77 million last year. Here’s his plan to turn it around" (2024-5-23) <https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/23/media/washington-post-will-le...>
6. "Washington Post cancellations hit 250,000 – 10% of subscribers" (2024-10-29) <https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/oct/29/washington-pos...>
For most of the listed orgs, it's a different business organisation (not-for-profit rather than shareholder-based), the organisations aren't intended to run an operating profit, and the content is available to far more than just those who pay directly for access.
Mind that in the case of ad-supported print media, the principle customers (the advertisers) weren't identical with the set of readers. But access was largely limited to those who subscribed directly, bought a newsstand copy, or could access a copy obtained by either method. In either case the operation was generally intended to run a profit.
There have also been free papers, either supported entirely by advertising (frequently "entertainment weeklies"), or published as propaganda organs for a given organisation, frequently religious or political.
Free papers might be either for-profit (ad-supported) or not-for-profit (propaganda). Ultimately there's a rather blurry line between advertising and propaganda: both are messaging modes in which the publisher is more interested in distribution than the reader.
It’s a good example of the media being split into two populations. The free media, which is filler for ads. And media one pays for. The financial press isn’t really headlining this story; it’s on CNBC.