51–60 of 65 posts
No one forced all news organizations to dump their in house advertising for easily ad blocked versions. They all had perfectly good reasons to not have to deal with the headache of losing money. But that would require keeping the ad sales team they had on board and making a similiar product online. But everyone got scared and lazy and saw a one quarter jump by dumping a bunch of staff.
Just to get a sense for the crowd: am I the only one who doesn't care much about the news industry? Keeping with what's new in society is important insofar as having an informed population is vital for the correct functioning of a democracy. But the "news industry" is 95% gargabe and contributes zero to getting people informed. I firmly believe that if the news industry disappeared tomorrow, we wouldn't be much worse…
I care about NEWS, factual reporting on current event We no longer have a news industry, we have a propaganda industry filled with political commenters and activists not journalists (that is both left and right)
Eons ago when Google started aggregating news they greatly damaged the news industry. This is because you could start seeing the bigger story and the bias in the individual reporting. This was damaging to Fox News obviously. It got worse unfortunately, the journalists were caught faking scenes. https://money.cnn.com/2016/11/04/media/abc-news-stage-live-s... Then the fake news was discovered: https://i.imgur.com/plF3W…
> Same newspaper, same story, contradictory reporting. Obviously this was done for different places.
I believe you are misinformed. A couple searches on the headlines tells a different story.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/wsj-different-trump-headli...
> Yes, the images represent two different editions, published at different times, and the headlines represent the news at the time of publication — before and after his speech.
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-wall-street-jou...
> While the two covers are both authentic, they were published at different times on that day to reflect evolving developments.
Just to get a sense for the crowd: am I the only one who doesn't care much about the news industry? Keeping with what's new in society is important insofar as having an informed population is vital for the correct functioning of a democracy. But the "news industry" is 95% gargabe and contributes zero to getting people informed. I firmly believe that if the news industry disappeared tomorrow, we wouldn't be much worse…
I don’t think music did very well as a result.
I think everyone forgets that the majority of activity in any industry is likely to be absolute garbage and in need of reform.
This does not mean the best next step is to destroy that system wholesale.
Just to get a sense for the crowd: am I the only one who doesn't care much about the news industry? Keeping with what's new in society is important insofar as having an informed population is vital for the correct functioning of a democracy. But the "news industry" is 95% gargabe and contributes zero to getting people informed. I firmly believe that if the news industry disappeared tomorrow, we wouldn't be much worse…
Not all are run by Robert Murdoch.
I would say Google is a very bad actor replacement. A lot of us ( I think) are critical enough to know when news through Google seems to be politically motivated.
But many people don't...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If much of todays news disappeared I suspect we would be better off as a society. Most of it passes more for propaganda than reporting of noteworthy things that happened. Good news, journalism, we need but it is in ever decreasing supply with the modern clickbait news cycle.
I'm inclined to agree, the primary focus is on numbers and engagement rather than strictly bound truthful reporting. How about websites just serve .txt files with a couple links to donate and publish facts/information. I don't need a 5GB JS-infested "website" to access what amounts to a few KB of the actual information I was looking for. This is something hackernews gets right as far as community engagement goes. Tru…
Just to get a sense for the crowd: am I the only one who doesn't care much about the news industry? Keeping with what's new in society is important insofar as having an informed population is vital for the correct functioning of a democracy. But the "news industry" is 95% gargabe and contributes zero to getting people informed. I firmly believe that if the news industry disappeared tomorrow, we wouldn't be much worse…
Many said this about the music industry. And much of it went away. I don’t think music did very well as a result. I think everyone forgets that the majority of activity in any industry is likely to be absolute garbage and in need of reform. This does not mean the best next step is to destroy that system wholesale.
The music industry is not doing great and this is fine. You would say it's definitely terrible if you are a musician clinging to the dying once-prevailing industry models that did not adapt to the Internet. That's your fault (as a musician), though.
> the majority of activity in any industry is likely to be absolute garbage and in need of reform.
> This does not mean the best next step is to destroy that system wholesale.
Kill it and start over. Why is this not a good thing?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google doesn't compete with papers but link papers to readers.
News papers business is selling ads, that’s Google’s Business too. Google has an advantage over individual publications in that it can track user behaviour across multiple sites. So news outlets have made deals with google to act as brokers for their ad space giving google more power and the ability to effectively set ad prices. Google regularly throws news organisations pitiful sums of ‘innovation’ money for PR purp…
Unfortunately, while there is still some business there—it's nothing compared to what it used to be. Most companies just go the online ads route now.
I would love to see the kind of push back you mention... but it would be a David v. Goliath task at this stage, except David forgot his sling at home.
At first I thought this was about some central licensing body regulating and awarding credentials to journalists, just like is done in professional endeavours like medicine, engineering, and law. I was internally debating the merits vs. the dangers (self-regulated or government controlled? Do we want official state-approved press?). Then I realized that it was purely about a distributor musing about paying content pr…
They didn't really go into details. Are we going to see "Google Licensed" news agencies now? That does not sit well with me.
