And why?
Israel declined due to the growing impact of Yisrael [Israel, actually] Hayom, whose owner-subsidized business model endangered the stability of other media outlets, and the unchecked expansion of paid content—some of it government funded—whose nature was not clearly identified to the public. (p. 20)
That reads as if someone from Yedioth Ahronot, in the past a virtual monopoly on the media scene, had composed that. Or someone from Haaretz.
Every newspaper is owned. Haaretz has a foreign investor. And all owners, at some point, subsidize their outlet. Does that mean it, too, should under a certain impact?
^
Posts
1 comment:
Received:
"Now there’s a reliable measure of merit: “the growing impact of Yisrael Hayom.”
You could get bogged down in arguing the “paid content” aspect. But what does that ridiculously weak, unproven premise actually mean? I don’t see a discussion of it in the text. Apparently we’re supposed to take it on faith. But it sounds like vague, tendentious BS to me."
Post a Comment