> This Bill establishes a mandatory code of conduct to help...
The Future would be restricted just by more CoCs.
Publishing Is Back to the Future
11–20 of 31 posts
Re: Publishing Is Back to the Future
#12This is the best part of Ben's article: > I think we as a society are in a far stronger place when it comes to knowing the truth than we have ever been previously, and that is thanks to the Internet…the New York Times doesn’t have the truth, but then again, neither do I, and neither does Amazon. This is the key insight in news today. You cannot rely on any one source for the full story. You must read multiple perspec…
I remember my father used to listen to Dr. Laura every day on his commute. My father is every bit a Massachusetts progressive. He used to arrange his schedule to make sure he could hear things like Dr. Farrakhan's speech at the Million Man March. He'd read the Wall Street Journal and get frustrated. I once asked why, and he said "It's important to know what other people think, even if they're wrong. Because every onc…
And at least you can be right about what other people think, you can be right about how other people are wrong
Re: Publishing Is Back to the Future
#13A shallow, one-sided take on what happened to the news business. I mean, here's a guy who quotes himself (!) saying, "I’d go further: I think we as a society are in a far stronger place when it comes to knowing the truth than we have ever been previously, and that is thanks to the Internet" As his example of this, he appears to the New York Times as his exemplar of a company that's been relatively successful online.…
> It would be much better for us as a community if they were wrong much more often and showed everyone things they don't want to see.
Tangent to this, "Tumblr is the best social media site of 2021":
https://phantomrose96.tumblr.com/post/639134013230088192/i-l...
Re: Publishing Is Back to the Future
#14This is the best part of Ben's article: > I think we as a society are in a far stronger place when it comes to knowing the truth than we have ever been previously, and that is thanks to the Internet…the New York Times doesn’t have the truth, but then again, neither do I, and neither does Amazon. This is the key insight in news today. You cannot rely on any one source for the full story. You must read multiple perspec…
I remember my father used to listen to Dr. Laura every day on his commute. My father is every bit a Massachusetts progressive. He used to arrange his schedule to make sure he could hear things like Dr. Farrakhan's speech at the Million Man March. He'd read the Wall Street Journal and get frustrated. I once asked why, and he said "It's important to know what other people think, even if they're wrong. Because every onc…
> He'd read the Wall Street Journal and get frustrated.
I'm frustrated with the WSJ too. What used to be a conservative but respected publication has over the years turned to little more than pop news and sensationalism.
Re: Publishing Is Back to the Future
#15A shallow, one-sided take on what happened to the news business. I mean, here's a guy who quotes himself (!) saying, "I’d go further: I think we as a society are in a far stronger place when it comes to knowing the truth than we have ever been previously, and that is thanks to the Internet" As his example of this, he appears to the New York Times as his exemplar of a company that's been relatively successful online.…
> Comparted to Breitbart, Fox News, and other non-fact based journalism
You're assuming that the NYT is "fact based journalism". I don't think it is. They are pushing a point of view, just as every other media source is.
> indispensable for all news outlets
I know the news outlets claim this, but I find the claim to be either very stupid (highly unlikely) or very disingenuous (much more likely). If I want to know what the NYT published today, I can go to their website. If I want to know what CNN is saying today, I can just watch them (or go to their website). Everyone knows these news sources exist and where to find them; it's not like they're new startups trying to acquire users. So the idea that the news outlets need to be visible in Google searches or Facebook feeds for people to know what they are saying is ludicrous.
Re: Publishing Is Back to the Future
#16they got a sugar high with clubhouse and now they think they can scale their medium investor scam media up. probably also motivated by /r/wsb latest forays.
are you referring to a16z?
Re: Publishing Is Back to the Future
#17There’s some good here but to talk only of business models misses the point. News provides public goods too and in examples like nyt, politico etc. they’re evaporating in favour of elite news for the elites. Now, the Australian bill is almost certainly at the behest of the Murdoch press, and so is likely shit...but if society, expressed through govt., decides that it values the public good of news, then society is en…
Corporate media provides the opposite of public good. In the case of NYT, they lied about WMDs in Iraq which helped sell the war that killed thousands of people. It's not obvious to me why they should be let off the hook for beating the blood-soaked war drums.
I see that you're being downvoted, presumably by people who aren't aware of the history of that subject.
Re: Publishing Is Back to the Future
#18Today, Youtube suggested to me to watch a 15 s Hitler speech. Why? I have not the slightest idea. But I clicked out of curiosity, just to see once more how "good" ol' Hitler spoke. It was one of his better speeches. Comments disabled. I'd say that's the problem of modern journalism. They have to compete with algorithms that maximize clicks and engagement, no matter what content. I hope I'm wrong but I see no way how…
> I hope I'm wrong but I see no way how this battle can be won in the long run.
I mean, this problem is actually very simple to fix: make advertising a felony. There's no way that's ever going to happen, but it is simple, easy to see, and effective.
Re: Publishing Is Back to the Future
#19This is the best part of Ben's article: > I think we as a society are in a far stronger place when it comes to knowing the truth than we have ever been previously, and that is thanks to the Internet…the New York Times doesn’t have the truth, but then again, neither do I, and neither does Amazon. This is the key insight in news today. You cannot rely on any one source for the full story. You must read multiple perspec…
I was taught this by my dad and my schoolteachers too. Up until the ‘90s, in Italy you knew in advance whose editorial perspective you were getting from any given newspaper or tv bulletin; so it was deemed necessary to survey a plurality of them to figure out the most likely scenario for any given piece of news. In the end, though, only the most politically engaged would actually do that, and typically in order to know “what the enemy thinks” for tactical reasons.
Nowadays it’s all a bit murky - traditional big-money owners are not interested in paying for a dying media, and political parties are chronically broke and often short-lived, so even the biggest properties can quickly change hands from chancer to chancer.
Re: Publishing Is Back to the Future
#20Ignorance of the business side is not childish or haphazard. Editorial independence - that the news should not be influenced by business concerns - is as important to journalists as "do no harm" is to doctors.
Separation between newsroom and ad business staff is maintained intentionally as a matter of ethics. It is the same sort of animal as the separation between proprietary trading and advisory services at a bank. The "Chinese wall."