SilverFox2
Well-Known Member
Just watched a film about Robert Maxwell, who used to insist he was name-checked copiously in The Mirror. However, their circulation went down when he was prominent on the front page. So their analysts obviously had a keen eye for what sold papers and what didn't.
Analysis is even more sophisticated now so it's clear that the media outlets know that negative stories about us, or even negative comments in stories not directly relating to us, have a positive impact on hits and circulation.
Talking about banning people or getting more aggressive with the media simply misses the point. In fact it actually gives them an excuse to be even more negative about us as well as reflecting badly on our owners.
Until we get to the point that we can generate more hits for a positive agenda than we can for a negative one, this is going to be the pattern.
Agree PB.
To add to your points the media is also changing so must alter its methods quickly or go under.
Recent sale of FT to a specialist digital media Company called Nikkei was an admission that it could not change fast enough so sold up whilst it could.
Using City as a means to increase a media's circulation may not be totally malicious but may suit one of the tactics needed to save jobs.