This isn't entirely wrong. But as a journalist, my observation is that *writer capture* has been a much bigger force than audience capture.
The owners of the outlets may have always preferred neutral coverage. But the writers were fresh out of a radical studies program at a university. There are many stories of staff pushing their editors far to the left, and that had nothing to do with the audience.
You write:
>> the NYT and BBC have got more left-wing because their audiences have got more left-wing, because the right wing audience drifted away to the new alternatives"
But why did the right wing audience drift away? It was because the BBC/CNN/AP/NYT etc abandoned right-wingers to begin with, focusing on capitalizing "Black" but not "white" and never using the wrong pronouns, instead of how to keep illegal immigration in check. They abandoned coverage of everything right-wingers care about, because their views are quite literally considered evil in the programs that the journalists were trained in.
If we imagine that CNN had made itself a commitment, from the start, to draw its writers from all walks of American life -- rather than just from elite universities -- they would never have lost their audience to the right-wing outlets, and they would still be seen as a gold-standard news source.
Your perspective is consistent with David Mieda leaving the LA times, as described in the article below. According to the piece, demand for far left perspectives came not from readers but from Nika Soon-Shiong.
By the way, I will add that I think your post (and audience capture) can explain why, having already lost these viewers, it’s now very hard to move to the center again
Pretty much. There's a lack of high-quality right-leaning news media, though. It actually bothers me, since I'm left of center but like to hear the other side. Scott Alexander and Matt Yglesias are kind of 'politics for centrists'; can you think of any others?
This isn't entirely wrong. But as a journalist, my observation is that *writer capture* has been a much bigger force than audience capture.
The owners of the outlets may have always preferred neutral coverage. But the writers were fresh out of a radical studies program at a university. There are many stories of staff pushing their editors far to the left, and that had nothing to do with the audience.
You write:
>> the NYT and BBC have got more left-wing because their audiences have got more left-wing, because the right wing audience drifted away to the new alternatives"
But why did the right wing audience drift away? It was because the BBC/CNN/AP/NYT etc abandoned right-wingers to begin with, focusing on capitalizing "Black" but not "white" and never using the wrong pronouns, instead of how to keep illegal immigration in check. They abandoned coverage of everything right-wingers care about, because their views are quite literally considered evil in the programs that the journalists were trained in.
If we imagine that CNN had made itself a commitment, from the start, to draw its writers from all walks of American life -- rather than just from elite universities -- they would never have lost their audience to the right-wing outlets, and they would still be seen as a gold-standard news source.
Your perspective is consistent with David Mieda leaving the LA times, as described in the article below. According to the piece, demand for far left perspectives came not from readers but from Nika Soon-Shiong.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/los-angeles-times-kevin-merida-exit-1235791364/amp/
Hee hee. “Trustafarian capture”.
So where does Fox recruit from?
By the way, I will add that I think your post (and audience capture) can explain why, having already lost these viewers, it’s now very hard to move to the center again
In theory, the small percentage of journalists who rebel against their indoctrination.
In practice even Fox is being pushed to the left.
Pretty much. There's a lack of high-quality right-leaning news media, though. It actually bothers me, since I'm left of center but like to hear the other side. Scott Alexander and Matt Yglesias are kind of 'politics for centrists'; can you think of any others?