When did writing in major newspapers become so bad? • Hacker News Board

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

#211

Post by doggodaddo78 » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 6:38 PM UTC

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…

One issue is that most deep thinkers who challenge the neoliberal, corporate order have been ostracized to dissident status: Ralph Nader, Chomsky, and Chris Hedges come to mind.

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

#212

Post by trhway » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 6:39 PM UTC

whoopdedo wrote: post #168

TravisLS wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like the Hemingway app, but it is very much designed to make you write like Hemingway (ie short, clear sentences _only_). Obviously most great writing is not in this style. The Hemingway app is good for work emails and marketing copy, or if you happen to like that style. It is hardly the universal arbiter of "poor or confusing writing".

When it comes to newspapers isn't this the goal, though? Hemingway's writing is journalistic writing. "The [Kansas City] Star’s style guide formed the basis for his own style that ran against the elaborate tendencies of 19th century writers."[1] So if you're judging the style of a journalist's writing a preferable guide is how similar to Hemingway it is. [1] https://mediahq.com/famous-authors-also-journalists/

> elaborate tendencies of 19th century writers.

reminded - on some estate sale here in US i randomly picked up and opened a small end-of-19th century book of some American writer that i never heard (that just means that it is definitely not a Tier-1 writer as i'm not an American). The first large paragraph consisted of just 2, yet pretty large, multipart sentences with several great ideas and observations masterfully woven together. I was awestruck. In Russia we call it "Tolstoy" (War and Peace) style and that beat even the Tolstoy. I immediately closed the book, quietly put it back. It was a very uncomfortable reminder of what we lost. The times has changed.

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

#213

Post by ketzo » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 6:39 PM UTC

jimmaswell wrote: post #126

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!

A measure that becomes a target often stops being a good measure.

Huh. This is actually quite insightful to me. I wonder if this applies more broadly? What from your own life makes you say that?

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

#214

Post by aerovistae » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 6:40 PM UTC

alisonkisk wrote: post #171

zeroonetwothree wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The parallel is in the perpetuation of destructive societal practices in the name of tradition, and in people being in favor of those destructive practices until it affects them: then it's suddenly not fair.

You can find that situation in so many places in modern culture that there's no point listing any, it's like looking for air.

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

#215

Post by ghaff » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 6:42 PM UTC

coliveira wrote: post #201

coliveira wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

English is not my first language, so it astonishes me that some people really think that short sentences make good writing. Anyone can write bad prose using short sentences. Moreover, by writing in this way the language loses any kind of spice, so it's not a surprise that journalism and technical texts are so unpalatable. Another consequence is that even educated people never stop sounding like they're talking to a t…

But in a sense I realize why this is a problem in English: German an some latin languages have grammatical structure to make it easier to create and understand long phrases. English lacks much of that structure. So, long phrases are difficult to parse. Compare for example Proust novels written in English and in his French original. In English it is almost gibberish, even in good translations.

That's probably true. I would have had to work to parse the first sentence in that article. The other thing going on is that, for many situations, the use of punctuation within long sentences to help the reader has sort of fallen out of fashion relative to breaking long sentences up. It's probably also more acceptable to use sentence fragments in certain types of prose.

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

#216

Post by chipotle_coyote » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 6:44 PM UTC

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.

Perhaps this is why a lot of comment threads quickly become arguments about the first thing that springs to commenters' minds when they read the headline rather than what the article actually says.

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

#217

Post by arrozconcosas » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 6:44 PM UTC

In 2016 when objective journalism died in major news institutions. Since then it is a cesspool of opinion pieces and advertising masquerading as content.

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

#218

Post by disgruntledphd2 » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 6:44 PM UTC

mitchdoogle wrote: post #172

symlinkk wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

The number of commentators who have read the article decreases exponentially as a function of length.

A good case in point is the biggest ideas in Statistics paper that's hovered around the front page for a while.

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

#219

Post by kevan » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 6:45 PM UTC

alisonkisk wrote: post #167

kevan wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>this area is most likely to value efficiency Agreed. The general style values simple sentences which helps reading speed and comprehension, especially for audiences that don't share your native language. And it reduces fluff. Adverbs, for example, generally don't help make a point in business writing - data does. See the example in that last sentence? I snuck a premise instead of stating it as a hypothesis or provi…

What was the sneaky premise? A premise is a hypothesis. We don't explicitly tag all our premises; it's up to the reader to decide if they agree with the premises.

Fair, it wasn't a great example.

>We don't explicitly tag all our premises

True but we should aim to tag more of them in business writing. It's helpful to clearly state them so 1. You as the writer are crystal clear on the assumptions you're making, and 2. if there's any disagreement on premises you can resolve it before you spend any time discussing which course of action to take.

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

#220

Post by gota » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 6:45 PM UTC

avree wrote: post #186

It's funny that the author makes several mistakes in this piece criticizing writing. The first jumped off the page at me: "She is involved in The Drunken Canal, a regional print publication based New York City" This is also bad writing: “Honor Levy was conflicted about pulling her piece from The Drunken Canal, a regional New York print paper she began last year. She had several short stories published in the New York…

Term 'regional' speaks to the "scope" (the circulation? ) of the paper. It is not at all redundant with 'New York', a paper can be 'regional' anywhere, right?

And 'print paper' is not meaningless, even if the author made it up. In context it clearly means not-an-online paper.

Both terms are indicating limited reach of pieces published in The Drunken Canal.