better for generating SHAREHOLDER PROFITS.
Too bad such an approach is horrible for democracy and continuity of the republic...because the Republicans have not been able to defend their policies morally, socially or economically since the 1990s. The senior executives at the publicly traded media services know this, and so they report on shallow 'gotcha' issues with Democrats, carefully avoiding any policy discussions.
This way, some odious liar like Trump or Vance gets all softballs (the media is only now starting to be pressured by public outrage to even report on Trump's fitness for office because of the horserace/profits quarterly profits deal Wall Street demands), while the media does all it can possibly do to not cover substantive candidates on the issues. For example, we saw CNN doing 'person in the street' interviews asking voters what they thought of the allegations of Walz stealing valor. This form of swiftboating, in the reasoning of Wall Street hedge fund greed lizards, keeps the race more even and thus generates higher ratings and better PROFITS.
This is the reason I always talk about our need to change the rules of corporate governance here in the United States to a stakeholder approach where workers, consumers and the environment are required to be held of equal value to shareholder profits. Because right now, the ONLY fiduciary responsibility of any executive in a publicly traded company is to generate profits. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, in terms of responsibility for truth in news.
However, if we had a stakeholder approach that held the needs of consumers (including truth in news reporting) equal to shareholder profits, it would essentially be a 21st century Fairness Doctrine.
= new reply since forum marked as read