Years after the death of its newspaper, Richmond's primary source of local news is a website funded by Chevron, the oil giant whose refinery looms over the city's horizon.

The issue of California’s growing news deserts — and the fallout on civic engagement — has become a heated topic in the state Legislature, where Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland) is pushing a measure, Assembly Bill 886, that would require leading social media platforms and search engines to pay news outlets for accessing their articles, either through a predetermined fee or through an amount set by arbitration. Publishers would have to use 70% of those funds to pay journalists in California. Lawmakers are also considering state Senate Bill 1327, which would tax large tech platforms for the data they collect from users and pump the money into news organizations by giving them a tax credit for employing full-time journalists.

In this news desert, the main information source has been the Richmond Standard, a news website funded by Chevron, Richmond’s largest employer. It offers reports on youth sports, crime logs and things to do in town. Recent articles have highlighted a mural project, a car caravan supporting racial justice and upcoming closures to Interstate 80.

  • @pelespiritOPMEnglish
    1•2 months ago

    Did you take a gander at the stickied post of the backgrounds of some of those pubs?

    AP, pretty bad Board of Directors, The Guardian isn’t terrible most of the time, but it’s owned by a Canadian billionaire, (Edit: I was confusing Reuters with The Guardian, The Guardian actually had the best Board of Directors, imo) Wall Street Journal is a Murdoch pub so it’s pure BS, NPR’s Board for national isn’t great but their locals are wonderful. You do you though.

    • @sugar_in_your_teaEnglish
      0•2 months ago

      AP, pretty bad Board of Directors

      Care to be more specific? I don’t recognize pretty much any of them by name, and a quick look over their bios doesn’t reveal anything particularly interesting.

      Wall Street Journal is a Murdoch pub so it’s pure BS

      I honestly don’t care who owns the publications, I care about their journalistic integrity. I’m guessing that has more to do with Fox News association than any issues with their actual publications. I avoid Fox News like the plague because it’s “news entertainment” and not proper journalism (also why I generally avoid CNN, but Fox is way worse).

      I like the WSJ because it gives a good counter to other popular news sources, like the NYT (which is also a fantastic news source and should be added to my list). However, I try to limit how much American news I read since there are a lot of omissions that external sources may include, so I only really check WSJ or NYT if it’s something specific to the US to get a US take, and I will almost always pick something based outside the US, depending on the story. If it’s something to do with elections, I generally look outside the US because the media is going to be completely biased. But if it’s foreign policy or something, US outlets are generally pretty good at getting an inside scoop.

      • @pelespiritOPMEnglish
        1•2 months ago

        I care about their journalistic integrity.

        Then you should care who owns it because he is not a good person and will lie his ass off to get what he wants in every pub he owns.

        For AP:

        • The CEO of Wapo who is a terrible person
        • a Reddit dude,
        • Conde Nast who owns (owned?) most of Reddit,
        • The Map Strategy Group that is focused on swaying people’s minds, etc.

        Basically, most of them have weird financial and/or social media connections. Some are terrible people too.

        Edit: I hope you’re now going to know everything about each person I mentioned so you can defend against it. OR, my favorite, saying I’m seeing things, lol. That’s what I love about Lemmy, there are a shit ton of seasoned ex-Redditors here that know the game and can easily spot the gamers. I just like talking about how fucked up the media is.

        Edit 2 on your edit: The NYT is a terrible news source. Source

        • @sugar_in_your_teaEnglish
          1•2 months ago

          I hope you’re now going to know everything about each person I mentioned

          I honestly don’t know anything about any of them, except Rupert Murdoch, who actually recently stepped down as Chairman.

          The NYT is a terrible news source. Source

          Uh, your source is just the NYT…

          I find the NYT is really good for most things. The stories they cover are usually well-cited, and their bias is usually pretty clear, so they’re pretty good when contrasted with other sources with known and opposite biases, like the WSJ. Every media source has bias, so the trick is to get a good mix of well-cited sources with known biases.

          • @pelespiritOPMEnglish
            1•2 months ago

            I have looked at every pub you mentioned every week day and post articles I find not shitty and focused on the elements. I don’t think I’ve ever posted from NYT, maybe once. Wall Street Journal? Nope. My opinion is that all except for a couple cross the line into bias most of the time. Choosing the best shit out of the shit pile is a hard job that I don’t think we should have to have. We need the fairness doctrine back.

            I honestly don’t know anything about any of them, except Rupert Murdoch, who actually recently stepped down as Chairman.

            Wow, you just happened to know that little part, eh? Except you’re not mentioning that the now CEO Is more of the same and Murdoch still owns it:

            Almar has an extensive track record of building successful news media businesses in the digital age. He oversaw the creation of the Barron’s Group, quadrupling the group’s digital audience at Barron’s and MarketWatch, and led the highly-successful modernization of The Wall Street Journal’s website during the global financial crisis, setting the stage for the Journal’s first million digital subscriptions. Almar also led the development of The Wall Street Journal in Japan, Korea and China.

            Source

            Not having any fun anymore. Bye.

            • @sugar_in_your_teaEnglish
              1•2 months ago

              cross the line into bias

              I don’t mind bias, as long as it’s easy to notice. That’s what multiple sources are for. People are really bad at removing their own biases, so I’d much rather they provide quality sources instead of trying to self-correct. It’s easy enough to check a site with an opposite bias and drill down into any details that differ.

              For example, if one side says Trump is leading the polls and the other says Harris is, I’ll check the sources for their poll numbers and decide which I trust more. I find the analysis more interesting (i.e. what are Trump and Harris planning to do about it) than the numbers themselves, especially at this point in the race.

              you’re not mentioning that the now CEO

              I don’t know anything about the new CEO. I just know Murdoch stepped down.

              I try to avoid assumptions that the owner is directly involved in journalistic processes without proof. WAPO is pretty well trusted, and if they make obviously misleading articles, they’ll lose a lot of subscribers, whereas people just expect that BS from Fox News since most of their content is entertainment BS anyway. WAPO is a good counter to NYT, and I generally look at one international news org for anything I read from either.

              Not having any fun anymore. Bye.

              Fair. Thanks for all the articles you post. 😀