• KingOfSleep
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    53
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    4 months ago

    The media is not one thing. Media is plural. Good luck getting “the media” to agree on anything.

    • pivot_root@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      40
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      They sure can agree on a few things:

      • Ads make money.
      • More ads make more money.
      • Money.
      • More money.
      • 🦀 money money money 🦀
        • pivot_root@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          If they’re privately held, yes.
          If they’re publicly traded, yes.
          If they’re publicly funded, also yes, but only because they wouldn’t exist otherwise.

          Even if they don’t say it, it’s always a priority :)

        • aidan@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          Yet I feel like every time I listen to them they’re basically running an ad for a movie/TV show/book through a fluff interview with someone who worked on it.

          • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            But there is no incentive to get more money than they need to operate, because the shareholders and board don’t profit from it personally. NPR income is spent over 92% on program funding and 7% on administrative.

            It’s basically run the same way as Wikipedia. If enough people donated, there would be no ads at all.

            • aidan@lemmy.worldM
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              They run programming that they suspect will get them money, either through donations or government funding- because for those working to get raises the organization needs to have money. (As well as other reasons of course)

              • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                4 months ago

                You’re accusing a highly respected and frequently audited charity of embezzlement? Or you think from their public documents that they pay their employees too much?

                • aidan@lemmy.worldM
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  You’re accusing a highly respected and frequently audited charity of embezzlement?

                  No? I never said anything about embezzlement.

                  Or you think from their public documents that they pay their employees too much?

                  I also never said that.

                  Here’s an example:

                  If you work for a public park, you’re probably going to support more money for the park for a lot of reasons, but here are just a few:

                  1. the park may be able to afford to pay you more.

                  2. the park may be able to afford hiring more people making your job easier.

                  3. you likely care about the park to some extent and want other people to enjoy it.

                  4. you want where you work and spend your time to be liked.

                  5. you are less likely to be at risk of losing your job.

                  None of those things are embezzlement or suggest you’re overpaid.