When I was a young foreign affairs writer I foolishly suggested to my editor that the newspaper should print more foreign news. It was important, I argued, to educate our readers about the wider world.

His eyes literally bulged from his head as he slowly rose from behind his desk, to bellow: “Educate!? Educate!? Your job is to write stories that sell newspapers, thus making money for our owner. Now get out and do just that.”

He was right. A free and informative press is a cornerstone of our democracy. But to be free and provide accurate information it must be financially viable. To be financially viable it must produce stories that its readers/viewers/listeners want.

Today’s editors and publishers face major problems. As do the burgeoning army of podcasters, bloggers, vloggers and social influencers. The world of the internet and global communications has lowered the cost of entry into the publishing/broadcasting world while the size of the advertising pie which finances the media world has remained static.

Local newspapers have been particularly hard hit. Since 2005, Britain has lost about 300 titles. But this is nothing compared to the US where a staggering 2.514 local newspapers have either merged or disappeared over the same period. Those that survive cling to life with frustrated and underpaid skeleton newsrooms unable to adequately serve their communities.

At the national and international level, the survivors are those that successfully project their brand to control a niche. For titles such as “Plumbing World” the task is fairly straightforward. For a general news paper, broadcast, website or blog it is more problematic.

The response of editors and publishers to the problem has been to align their political views more closely to that of their main target audience. Thus The New York Times has become the standard bearer of American liberalism and Fox News its equivalent on the opposite side of the political spectrum. In Britain the media is dominated by conservative interests with The Daily Mail in the vanguard.

If a title or broadcast can establish itself as spokes-title for a clearly defined group then the cash will pour into the corporate coffers.  The New York Times reported profits of $347.9 million in 2022. The Daily Mail General Trust made about $1.4 billion in 2021 while Fox News made a staggering $2.15 billion net profit.

The bulging coffers of Fox means that it could afford the $787 million pay-out to settle the claims of Dominion Voting Systems. It was worth it. A courtroom trial would have wreaked monumental damage the cable channel’s reputation. To put it simply would firmly established that Fox lied. They know they lied and they lied for one reason: Money.

Fox News’ problems are not over. Another voting system, Smartmatic, issuing Fox as well. So we may still have a drama that leaves Fox’s reputation in tatters on the courtroom floor.

In the meantime, Fox is attempting to limit the damage. They have unceremoniously fired their most toxic right-wing presenter Tucker Carlson. He had to go. He was liar in chief and, on top of that, was caught bad-mouthing the management.

In Britain, The Daily Mail (and its fellow tabloids The Sun and the Daily Mirror) are facing their own battles with prodigal royal Prince Harry. He has taken it upon himself to bring the tabloid press to heel and is thus unlikely to settle for anything less than an extended and forensic courtroom trial.

But will the trials and the departure change editorial practices? Will they serve to remind editors of the distinction between pandering to their base and defaming people or companies that might sue? Unlikely.

The fact is that the media giants survive and prosper by telling their followers what they want to hear rather than the facts. Furthermore, they have painted themselves into this corner and cannot escape it without alienating their supporters which will obliterate their bottom line.

Tucker Carlson will be replaced by another right-wing firebrand who will continue to pour divisive political poison into the ears of American television audiences because that is what their viewers want. The Daily Mail will continue to attack immigrants and pry into the private lives of the good and the great because that is what their readers want.

It is said that voters get the governments they deserve. The same can be said of the media and its consumers. Unless, of course, you can find a way to “educate” the public.

* Tom Arms is foreign editor of Liberal Democrat Voice. He also contributes to “The New World” magazine and lectures on world affairs. He is the author of “America Made in Britain,” two editions of “The Encyclopaedia of the Cold War” and “The Falklands Crisis.”