Muy interesante columna, vale la pena leerla

Sobre un tema que no me termina de cerrar del todo: la (ex) prensa seria de EEUU prefiere perder lectores/televidentes con tal de favorecer su causa ideológica.

La vez pasada lo decía por acá. El fin de lucro es un gran disciplinador. Los medios tradicionales de EEUU son empresas con fines de lucro, muchas de ellas cotizan en bolsa. Su principal función es generar ganancias para sus accionistas, no la lucha política o ideológica. ¿Por qué ante la permanente sangría de suscriptores y audiencia estos medios siguen insistiendo con un modelo informativo que los lleva a la quiebra?

A menos que los directivos de esas empresas consideren que la mejor manera de maximizar sus ganancias sea a través del avance de la agenda ideológica de los gobiernos de izquierda:

The Jornolist scandal is the tip of the iceberg that shows just how thin the line between the press and the policies that they advocate really is. But that's not news to anyone. The liberal media is not some right wing talking point, poll after poll shows most of people who read newspapers and watch the news have come to that conclusion on their own. Because while the media elite may sneer at them, the public knows quite well what they stand for. And the more the media goes left, the less the public trusts it. Not just Republicans, but Democrats too. Because bias is bias, even when it does lean your way, it reduces the credibility of its purveyors as an information source. And the more they lose their audience, because the right tunes out and the left gets bored agreeing all the time, and heads to MSNBC in search of some red tofu.