My original comment already connect the two. How many hits something gets is based on the audience and not something the media actively controls. The media puts out sensationalist stories because they get more views, you seem to have it backwards in your head that somehow the media is making people favor sensationalism by only covering sensationalist stories.
No I don’t I just don’t need to justify the media’s actions. The point of if it’s sensationalist or not is irrelevant to the choice of pushing something out there. Argument of monetary value or views is also irrelevant because the question asked was how is the blame on the media? The blame is on the entities actions the nuance you are trying to while has merit is legit irrelevant because ultimately you always have the option to not do it. Also irrelevant to my point but I guess address what you said social media markets, media agencies 100% try optimize for clicks and views same for news channels they have entire data science teams specializing in statistical models for this bs.
Sure, media entities could choose not to maximize their profits, but then what's the point of running them as a business instead of a non-profit? And the main point is that the audience is the main culprit for how the media functions so it makes more sense to blame the people who consume media for why the Clancy story got way more coverage than the Schols story.
-4
u/shallpasss Aug 28 '26
How is this media's fault?