Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

When did writing in major newspapers become so bad?

mleverything.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 307 posts

Re: When did writing in major newspapers become so bad?

#171

Post by alisonkisk »

zeroonetwothree wrote: post #160
andi999 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am a bit surprised about: " The Lottery is considered a masterpiece of a short story, and is widely taught in American high schools." Really? I have difficulties understanding this. Is it because it is interesting for the kids through its shock value and manageable length? But this then looks to me like declaring ketchup to be vegetables so enough veggies are eaten at the canteen.

Are you questioning that it’s a masterpiece or why it should be taught in schools? For the latter it’s because issues students deal with in school directly parallel those in the story.

You school has something like a death lottery?

Re: When did writing in major newspapers become so bad?

#172

Post by mitchdoogle »

symlinkk wrote: post #105
Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't just that journalism has become an ideological battleground. Even without the cultural warfare, once-mighty publications would still be seen as in decline. The issue is the modern ad-based internet economy. Due to the pressures of swiftly producing content that draws maximum clicks, journalists at even august publications are now forced to create articles little distinguishable from a minimum-wage content wr…

Because 99% of long articles are a waste of time that could be summarized in a sentence or two. This is why no one reads articles here or on Reddit, and just skims the comments instead.

I almost always at least skim an article before diving into the comments. Many times I will read the whole thing, especially if it is short, as this one is. I do believe that most probably don't do that. It's often possible to tell which commenters have read it and which haven't, i.e. if a comment mentions something not even present in the article, or if it mentions something clearly refuted in the article.

I think it's important to read the things you comment on, and I think it's important to expect others to do so as well. Ignorance is tolerated too much these days, especially considering that knowledge is easier to obtain now than ever before.

Re: When did writing in major newspapers become so bad?

#173

Post by dehrmann »

Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #50
keiferski wrote: post #24

Something that I think is rarely discussed when this topic comes up is the loss of prestige. Working for The New York Times or The New Yorker used to have some weight with pretty much everyone in the country. That is no longer the case. It hasn't been so for at least a couple of decades. Extremely erudite-yet-mostly-apolitical people like Lewis Lapham [1] went to literary magazines and high-end journalism a half-cent…

It isn't just that journalism has become an ideological battleground. Even without the cultural warfare, once-mighty publications would still be seen as in decline. The issue is the modern ad-based internet economy. Due to the pressures of swiftly producing content that draws maximum clicks, journalists at even august publications are now forced to create articles little distinguishable from a minimum-wage content wr…

> The issue is the modern ad-based internet economy

Never forget this bias. It's the primary bias of most major news outlets. CNN wants you to keep watching CNN for more news, even if there isn't enough news to fill airtime, so they drag things out, bring on guests, and favor stories with the potential to keep you glued to your TV.

Re: When did writing in major newspapers become so bad?

#174

Post by berniemadoff69 »

Have you ever noticed how the general mood of newspapers (at least in the New York Times and the Washington Post) is a feeling of despair? This is easily noticeable when looking at the photography [0]. You can pick up a Sunday copy of the NYT, or even open up the NYT's twitter, scroll around, and observe how many stories' lead image is of someone looking off with a kind of gloomy gaze in their eye. I assume years of data analytics and testing has proven this formula will consistently get clicks.

[0] https://twitter.com/nytimesGLOOM

Re: When did writing in major newspapers become so bad?

#175

Post by ghaff »

beanders wrote: post #156
andi999 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes it is good entertainment, but wouldnt then the kids read those anyways?

That’s not a given, unfortunately. I believe that the intended long term strategy is to give kids a glimpse of something that is outwardly interesting, in order to increase their internal motivation to seek out other good reading material. Not necessarily to get it “right” the first time.

I don't claim to know the current thinking but, to me, it makes sense that the focus should be on "classic" literature (for which The Lottery qualifies) that's also approachable. I'd argue that a lot of Hemingway and Fitzgerald do as well--though I don't fully understand the popularity of The Old Man and the Sea.

I liked reading in high school and most of the 19th and 18th century works I read bored me to tears and I probably ended up at least partly just reading the Cliff Notes. Today, I expect I would go to Wikipedia.

Re: When did writing in major newspapers become so bad?

#176

Post by Barrin92 »

africanboy wrote: post #169
6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a great example of how people will use an easy quantification just because it exists. There’s a popular mindset that seems to think you can’t argue against numbers and math because they’re cold and scientific. Who cares if its a stupid number, it’s mathematically/scientifically correct!

that's not how it works though... you can't argue against numbers, you can absolutely argue against arbitrary numbers (like in this example the premise is that the app produces reliable results, which it does not and anyway it should be proved with good, hard to dispute, numbers)

OP's point is that all numbers are arbitrary (to varying degrees). The act of quantifying always imposes some sort of framework on what you're trying to look at, and we live in an age of pretty vulgar scientism where this is associated with 'objectivity'.

From 'personality scores' for applicants, to social credit scores, and in this case the quality of writing in a newspaper.

Re: When did writing in major newspapers become so bad?

#178

Post by alisonkisk »

keiferski wrote: post #39
gambler wrote: post #12

>I think a problem is that modern newspapers cater to an audience that’s expected to be very plugged in to the cultural and political topic of the day, or at least fake it. Spot on. The point of this style of writing isn't to provide you with information about new events. The point is to provide framing/spin for people who are already familiar (albeit uperficially) with occurring events. At some point I stopped consu…

I always thought the once a week Sunday paper format was a blessing in disguise. It forced writers to sum up the week in a way that anyone could pick up and understand. If you go to nytimes.com right now, there are a bunch of stories which are clearly in medias res. It feels like jumping into the 5th episode of a Netflix series.

People talk about "slow news". I'd like a weekly or monthly "current events" review more than news, except for major timely events like an election or natural disasters.

What happened to "newsweek"?

Re: When did writing in major newspapers become so bad?

#179

Post by alisonkisk »

cuillevel3 wrote: post #139
kyle_martin1 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. Centralized media equals a controlled narrative. Gone are the days of investigating prestige and bi-partisan reporting. Maybe it never really existing though... It's clear that the majority of reporters lean center to far left politically. When it comes to topics that will make their "side" look bad, there's usually a lack of intellectual curiosity for the truth. This happens on both sides, of course, but th…

Wikipedia says Project Veritas is a far right activists group, you could have honestly mentioned that.

The problem with Project Veritas is the extreme dishonesty in what they publish, not their political lean or goals.

Re: When did writing in major newspapers become so bad?

#180

Post by asdff »

offtop5 wrote: post #21

This is what happens when you spend decades demonizing journalism. Instead of giving us insightful articles, the New York times is competing against Facebook and Twitter to grab your attention immediately. I have a feeling most people don't read an entire New York times article, the entire point is just to create headlines you can share on Facebook or Twitter, keep those clicks and kpis flowing! In a way this is fant…

What is most jarring is reading about a given topic in a paper like NYT. You will start to have all sorts of deja vu before you realize that they sometimes self plagiarize entire paragraphs to fill in the meat of these articles. Then it becomes apparent the entire piece was written by someone stressed out who must have had 10 minutes to put it out.
Post reply on HN