Anyone who would actually say that quote out loud in front of a camera clearly means the latter. People who value public trust would never think of saying a sentence like that, because the focus would be on their relationship with the public and not on themselves.
Comment on WSJ lead editor annoyed that they don't control the narrative anymore: "We owned the news"
kippinitreal@lemmy.world 5 months ago
To give them benefit of the doubt, maybe they meant that they were trusted to be factual. “We owned the news” could mean most people thought “I trust the WSJ so if they say so it must be true”. But now in the age of misinformation, no one can be trusted.
But all this was said at Davos, the literal comic con for billionaire assholes. Its more likely they were talking about a news monopoly, facts be damned.
Dammit! I wish there were a news owner who could tell me what to think! /s
orcrist@lemm.ee 5 months ago
kippinitreal@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Good point! No one brags about control because they care about those they control. Its the power they value.
merdaverse@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Yes, I gave her the benefit of the doubt as well, but framing it as “we were the gatekeepers” and seeming annoyed that they have to be more transparent about their process is an… interesting way of presenting the argument.
I didn’t find the full context for the video, but I don’t think she was talking about the problem of misinformation. Even if they have credible sources that 99% of experts agree on and a transparent process misinformation will still be spread (see climate change denial). So I think that’s a different problem entirely.
Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 5 months ago
I mean, they lost all credibility the second Rupert bought them. The willingness to sell cast doubt on their credibility prior to the sale.