There are impartiality rules to stop owners from directly influencing the content in media companies. While they can still exert influence via editorial direction, investments, and personal power, it's unquestionably against the rules and you have an entire structure of editors, writers and reporters who have sworn an oath and have clear incentives to keep their credibility intact.
Another important aspect is that you, the reader, actually have a choice of which vehicles will earn your money and eyeballs.
Even when those interventions happened, they are a lot more subtle than turning an election completely around in a couple months. It's still game-able but a far cry from such billionaires directly controlling algorithms which dictate exactly the kind of content you're seeing, where and when.
> The solution to this issue is rooted in economics.
How so? In what plausible scenario does intellectually-stimulating, rational content would win over engagement-driven content?
Another important aspect is that you, the reader, actually have a choice of which vehicles will earn your money and eyeballs.
Even when those interventions happened, they are a lot more subtle than turning an election completely around in a couple months. It's still game-able but a far cry from such billionaires directly controlling algorithms which dictate exactly the kind of content you're seeing, where and when.
> The solution to this issue is rooted in economics.
How so? In what plausible scenario does intellectually-stimulating, rational content would win over engagement-driven content?