Companies that benefit from the status quo won't buy ads on networks that advocate change.
I know of only one oil company that advertises only on right-leaning blogs and news sites.
What happened is the papers of the rich started being subsidized by advertisers, so the working class papers couldn't compete and all went out of business.
Really? I would think that rich people would be harder to advertise to. If you're in the top 1%, you spend your time around the people you take cues from -- if the New York Times says one thing is cool, and Trey Wellborne the Nth says another, you're going to emulate Trey.
That's why poor people are largely illiterate and uneducated today, whereas only fifty years ago it was the working class that drove the progressive movement.
A more sensible hypothesis is that our economy is better at using smart people than it was fifty years ago. For one thing, fifty years ago, half of the smartest 50% were restricted to working as housewives and secretaries. There are now many more jobs for which a high IQ leads to higher pay -- so the problem isn't that the poor were under-stimulated and thus became dumb; it's that the smart, regardless of stimulation level, didn't stay poor.
I know of only one oil company that advertises only on right-leaning blogs and news sites.
What happened is the papers of the rich started being subsidized by advertisers, so the working class papers couldn't compete and all went out of business.
Really? I would think that rich people would be harder to advertise to. If you're in the top 1%, you spend your time around the people you take cues from -- if the New York Times says one thing is cool, and Trey Wellborne the Nth says another, you're going to emulate Trey.
That's why poor people are largely illiterate and uneducated today, whereas only fifty years ago it was the working class that drove the progressive movement.
A more sensible hypothesis is that our economy is better at using smart people than it was fifty years ago. For one thing, fifty years ago, half of the smartest 50% were restricted to working as housewives and secretaries. There are now many more jobs for which a high IQ leads to higher pay -- so the problem isn't that the poor were under-stimulated and thus became dumb; it's that the smart, regardless of stimulation level, didn't stay poor.