Hacker News Reader

I have a much less charitable view than you about Elizabeth Holmes.

The fact that a new publicist was hired by her before all the sympathetic press started coming out is enough for me to believe that there's a link there and not a natural news swing cycle.

https://www.theverge.com/news/611549/elizabeth-holmes-people...

I don’t have a strong enough view here to have an opinion, but I think someone as rich as her always had a publicist, so to play devils advocate, it may be true that the press only played ball with the publicist after she was convicted.

Elizabeth Holmes had some very big fish as investors she ended up defrauding, so it’s possible the devil’s best advocates were busy advocating she go to jail before her sentence.

Or maybe just the new publicist is better than the old publicist?

Or maybe it's a simple change of strategy; the goal is now "rehabilitate image" rather than "prevent conviction" - and with the new strategy, a new team.

Thank you so much for this comment - you've put a name ("contrarian and counter-cyclical reporting") on a phenomenon that I've observed a lot and is one of the main reasons I don't consume the media anymore.

The craziest example for me was NYC congestion pricing. When it was about to happen, all the reporting was about all of the downsides of the tolls starting. A week after the New York Governor "indefinitely paused" congestion pricing, the reporting was all about the downsides of the tolls not starting.

So the media intentionally stirs controversy and they aren't even getting paid to do it by hostile states or the ultra-wealthy? There really is no hope is there.

The media relies first and foremost on advertising revenue, which depends on ratings or viewership metrics, which become the goal. The more viewers you get, the more expensive advertising slots become: the point stops being to report the facts and starts being to engage the audience at an emotional level, so that they come back for more.

the newsroom did used to be slightly more insulated when advertising was limited by technology, but once the doors blew open with Craigslist and other online ads it became a craven race to the bottom for both attention and shrinking the newsroom

There really is no hope is there.

No, there's not. The incentives are hopelessly misaligned.

If the biggest, most profitable story is the destruction of civilization itself, then the news media -- which like so many other institutions in our society is owned by people too old or too wealthy to suffer the eventual consequences -- will cheer it on.

There is one group that funds the majority of the media and conditions that funding on nonstop controversy all the time: average people.

The vast majority of people don't look at news media (much less pay for it) unless there's a massive controversy.

There is also a bias that the people who agree with the status quo tend not to be noisy about it, so as the status quo shifts you may well hear from different people to before.

French media are owned by his literal relatives, one (Bouygues, owner of the largest French /media? With TF1 etc.) being the witness of one of his wedding and godfather of his son Louis. The other son is married to the heir of Darty/FNAC. I don't remember where Dassault (major newspaper owner) fits but they were both close as well.

Dassault (major newspaper owner)

Is that like Lockheed Martin owning a major newspaper or GE owning a TV network?

Or SpaceX owning Twitter, or the president owning Truth Social?

Or Amazon owning the Washington Post.

Or journalists everywhere shaping stories to their own biases.

almost like ... journalistic integrity and ... maybe less monopoly ... are good things

that is not the same.

Sure they are. They’re both just people using whatever power they have to shape the narrative.

on the one hand you have the owner dictating his political bias to all his employees/journalists. on the other hand you have a person/journalist interpreting reality through their own political bias. what's the difference? in the first case the medium would only report biased in one direction, in the second case it'd report roughly split around the percentages of the (journalistic) population, e.g. 60% this, 40% that.

Amazon doesn't own the Washington Post. Jeff Bezos does. I'm not sure if this makes the situation worse or better.

> GE owning a TV network

Ever watched any NBC IP in the 2000s and early 2010s?

  > > GE owning a TV network
  > Ever watched any NBC IP in the 2000s and early 2010s?

Sure, recalling 30Rock's continual references to it brought it to mind as a relatively politically neutral US equivalent. Granting the limits of my TV consumption, NBC's IP never evoked thoughts of purchasing a nuclear sub or jet engine.

It's actually kind of worse. Because you get a mix of Dassault (the company)'s agenda (defense spending, pro-industry) and a push for the fairly conservative views of the Marcel Bloch/Dassault descendants themselves.

To be fair, le Figaro was The French conservative newspaper long before the Dassault's ownership (like +100 years prior), so it's more a case of "Le Figaro has a more comfortable budget to push its views".

The closest I can think of in the US context is Bezos owning the Washington Post to both push his personal views and Amazon's interests.

Or maybe lately, Larry Ellison's take over of Paramount/CBS (but it feels more like he is buying a toy for his son).

> Or maybe lately, Larry Ellison's take over of Paramount/CBS (but it feels more like he is buying a toy for his son).

If it were just a toy for his son these things wouldn't have happened - Stephen Colbert canned - Bari Weiss hired to head the news division - $32 million settlement for an easily winnable lawsuit

I've probably missed some. Ellison is a huge Trump supporter and is clearly reshaping CBS to at least go easy on Trump, if not to make it yet another right wing propaganda outlet.

$32 million settlement for a lawsuit *they had already won*. They were supposedly “settling” with Trump so that he wouldn't refile it.

It was a straight-up bribe.

Or Musk, who heads a few businesses that directly benefit from government contracts, including some in the defense sector, owning one of the largest online media platforms (fka Twitter).

Pierre Fabre (big pharma) associated with the Dassault family used to have a big share in Valmonde, the owner of Valeurs Actuelles, and Olivier Dassault was for a time the lead editorialist (lead op-ed writer). Valeurs Actuelles used to be very traditionally conservative (vaguely associated with a conservative rural party) in the 1970s, then moderate right-of-center.

Olivier Dassault turned it into one of the main supports of Nicolas Sarkozy starting 2005 or 2006 for his successful presidency campaign in 2007 until 2014.

After the Sarkozy and Hollande eras Valeurs Actuelles turned far-right. Eric Zemmour, a publicist-turned-politician, used to write for Valeurs Actuelles. It is financially in the hands of the French-Lebanese Safa family.

I used to read their monthly magazine "Le Spectacle du Monde" which was at the time much less political. It is now independent, headed by an elderly diplomat and collaborator to former president Jacques Chirac.

Ragrding Sarkozy, you also forgot his close relationships with the late Lagardère father (biggest French media mogul in the 1990s) and with André Bettencourt and his window (L'Oréal, richest person in France in the 2000s). Despite his being in jail, Sarkozy remains administrator of the Lagardère trust.

It's hard to imagine but they are not contrarian fueled articles. It's not the usual thing, here are only interviews of their closed one with their verbatim highlighted. Words of support from public figures. The day before going to jail he was received at the current president office (like the french Whitehouse) the day after, the "justice minister" went to see him in jail to give him his support.

You have editorial like "Sarkozy stays honorable and magnificent despite an illegal non proof based sentence" "His wife so sad that this hero of the nation that did so much, proud father, beloved by his friends, will have to live this hard experience" All days long.

A few examples just to give one newspaper: https://x.com/Le_Figaro/status/1980589938941874341

Or "Sarkozy in jail, the fault of the justice!" https://x.com/Le_Figaro/status/1980567283157139926

And we now all know well what book "he will bring" to show how honorable is this man: "The count of Monte Cristo", "life of Jesus Christ", ...

I don't think this is a deliberate ruse, but news organizations giving in to public pressure. I remember the NBC coverage of the conflict in Gaza in the days immediately following October 7, and how their narrative swung rapidly as public consensus against the IDF developed.

The public pressure against “the IDF” (but really against Jewish people) came from Qatari sponsorship of US higher education. If you dislike AIPAC you should dislike Qatar much more, for their budget is much higher.

Qatar gave a great deal of money to Tulane University - if you want to call an insititution with a 40% Jewish student body anti-Semitic I don't know what to say to you.

Are you saying the donation wouldn’t have an effect?

They were not against the IDF as an institution.

I made a deliberate effort to neutralize my statement as much as possible. We could argue on this issue, but what we can't disagree on is the fact that there's an issue (which is all that's relevant to the point I was trying to make).

Sure but the public pressure “against the IDF” was manufactured. That’s an important point and relevant to the current discussion.

It was manufactured by the IDF soldiers uploading videos of their war crimes to tiktok.

I was attempting to invoke Hanlon's Razor to rationalize the narratives being disseminated by news media, because I am exhausted by conspiratorial thinking. I chose the phrasing that I did in an effort to be as charitable as possible to both sides. I will not be badgered into wasting my time on an embarrassing and fruitless political debate on this orange website or any other.

So far we’ve had a genocide where the population increases, a destroyed hospital that was still standing, people begging for food from a photographer in a staged environment with no food being handed out, disabled children that look thin being used to fake starvation - if you’re exhausted by the conspiracy theorists you don’t to be as charitable as possible to them. Call them out.

No.

It's not always to gain views, because you can often see that the relative directors/presidents of such media companies openly support certain types of people. The way I see it, especially lately in Germany, is really about elections and politics. Even a stupid article can lead to "i will vote for xyz" in no time.

I would agree with you if media didn't have a direction, but in many cases they do.

This reminds me so much of fashion and what young people find cool and not as the time passes.

Enslaving our media to what triggers the cravings of the masses was probably one of the dumbest thing we did. And we owe it, like many other terrible things, to ad industry.

It's a parasite of the economy and cancer of society. Serves no useful purpose beyond what an open access database of all products and services could cheaply fulfill.

There is some of that, but most often the contrarian news is commissioned and paid for, and if it succeeds then you get organic growth

No, it's not some kind of clickbait strategy to drive views. Driving an agenda is.

Most of French media, specially newspapers, are money sinks only surviving because they are useful to push the rent-seeking business or ideological agenda of their owners (Dassault, Bouygues, Lagardere, Arnault, Bettencourt, Saade, Pinault, Niel).

Also, just for context, Martin Bouygues, Bernard Arnault and Vincent Bollore, the respective owners of TF1 (main French TV channel), Le Parisien (major newspaper) and CNews/Europe1 (major TV channel & radio) are personal friends of Sarkozy (a la "witness at your wedding, god father of your son or let's celebrate your election on my yacht" kind of way).

The Figaro (main right-wing newspaper in France) and its owners, the Dassault family, are also not far away.

Seeing the Figaro website was actually quite funny. Because the evidences are so damming, their main page was textbook "how to propagate fake news with plausible deniability". It was mainly pro-Sarkozy Editorials/Tribunes from non-journalists people, articles titled with quotes from Sarkozy's supporters and the few articles actually on the case were about the side stories.

French press ownership map:

https://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/cartes/PPA#&gid=1&pid=1

There are only two truly independent major media left in France: Mediaparte (the ones we have to thanks for Sarkozy's well deserved condemnations) and Le Canard Enchaine (a bunch of scandals, but lately, the "Affaire Fillion").

The rest is either owned by billionaires, state run, or is far smaller and doesn't have the aura, size & credibility to reveal such scandals.

What about Le Monde Diplomatique?

In April 2024, Le Monde Group’s majority stakeholder became a financial endowment, or fonds de dotation (FDD), named Fonds pour l'indépendance de la presse.

En: https://www.lemonde.fr/en/about-us/article/2023/09/24/two-ma...

Fr: https://www.lemonde.fr/actualite-medias/article/2023/09/24/d...

This was the result of journalist demands, covered here: https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/le_monde_daniel_kretinsk...

This structure is also used by Mediapart, owned by Fonds pour une presse libre, and Libération, owned by Fonds de dotation pour une presse indépendante, with Mediapart being inspired to emulate The Manchester Guardian (which has been operated by a trust since 1936): https://www.lesechos.fr/tech-medias/medias/le-monde-appartie...

Le Monde Diplomatique is a far-left (but rather intellectual) newspaper, completely separate from Le Monde.

Le Monde Diplomatique is a subsidiary (51%) of Monde SA.

"Le Monde owns 51%; l’association Les Amis du Monde diplomatique and l’association Gunter Holzmann, comprising the paper’s staff, together own 49%)."

But this 2010 article supports your point generally, claiming that the editors of the newspaper cannot influence the monthly. https://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2010/07/HALIMI/19372

"It's complicated" I guess.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Monde_diplomatique offers a few first insights. Note how the page quickly emphasizes the redaction's independence.

Yet, it might be reasonably true: as stated in the Wikipedia page, Le Monde Diplomatique is read mostly by educated people, who probably are 1/ less susceptible to/more aware of coarse manipulation 2/ much less numerous.

That's to say, influencing (too much) the redaction might have too low of a costs/benefits ratio.

Personal anecdote: I've read it a few times about a decade ago. At that time, I perceived some of the articles to be more emotionally grounded than rationally, and the prose to be at time needlessly heavy, "sophisticated".

Those are the main reasons why I didn't kept reading it more often.

I had the same experience as you with Le Monde diplomatique. The language used in some of the articles felt a lot like propaganda ( hyperbolic language, us vs them, anger/emotional language, basic facts being ignored etc ). I was very surprised since the paper had a good reputation , and gave up. Maybe ( hopefully) this has changed.

Groupe Le Monde (Xavier Niel, founder of Free and 42 schools, wed to Bernard Arnault's daughter (French Bourgeoisie is a small world)).

But Le Monde Diplomatique's redaction has been able to remain independent thanks to it's 49% shares and veto right.

It's also fairly small (~10 permanent journalists + independent contributors, ~150k monthly readers).

It's not really the kind of journal able to sustain a long investigation, it's more "social commentaries with a left-leaning/alter-mundialist point of view".

So how is the French populus reacting to Sarkozy being jailed?

It's a phase lead relationship.

Much like a brushless motor controller, if you pull towards the direction the rotors already faces, it's uninteresting. But if you lead the momentum in a different direction...

Imprisoning political prisoners is a great kick off to a bright future (historically speaking).

What is your definition of a "political prisoner"?

Sarkozy is not a political prisoner though. He's a politician that committed fraud by taking foreign money to finance his electoral campaign. Once elected he then proceeded to declare war to the dictator who gave him that money and eventually got him killed. That last point is sadly not in the scope of the judgement.

Are we crying tears over Muammar Gaddafi here? The man was a butcher and NATO was completely justified in imposing a no fly zone and supporting the National Transition Council in Libya. There was a UN Security Council resolution authorizing it.

Lots of things to criticize Sarkozy for but his support for the intervention is not one of them.

As a result the country entered dark ages with suffering unseen before. Of course Gaddafi was betrayed by the French. Just like France is betraying all of their former colonies.

Except that Libya never was a French colony I think.

Ottoman then Italian.

>Are we crying tears over Muammar Gaddafi here?

Yes, because removing Gaddafi from power after he yielded to international pressure to give up his nuclear-weapons ambitions makes it less likely that leaders will agree to give up nuclear ambitions in the future.

All leaders of countries know that no one would do to the leader of North Korea what France, Britain and the US did to Gaddafi -- because North Korea has nukes.

Failing to hold those in power accountable for their corruption has not been something that has produced positive outcomes, historically.