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

The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 247 posts

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#231

Post by afpx »

coldtea wrote: post #192

It's not Scientific American. It's every medium. The NYT of 2022 is not the NYT of the past, and WP is not the WP of Watergate. And it goes beyond the ideological issues. In fact, the same declining quality (though not with the same specifics of course) is the case in every industry where they're fighting for increasingly thinner profit margins. It was the same back in the day (as far back as Mark Twain, Hearst/"Kane…

It's just capitalism at work. The period between 1940 and 2000, roughly, is when white men had the most disposable income. Unsurprisingly, most media was produced for them, specifically. Now, white men have a very small piece of the disposable income pie. And, we see lots of diversity in media and big media companies trying to appeal to the widest demographic.

So, I'm guessing that Scientific American's readership just changed, and they went with what sells.

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#232

Post by coldtea »

afpx wrote: post #231
coldtea wrote: post #192

It's not Scientific American. It's every medium. The NYT of 2022 is not the NYT of the past, and WP is not the WP of Watergate. And it goes beyond the ideological issues. In fact, the same declining quality (though not with the same specifics of course) is the case in every industry where they're fighting for increasingly thinner profit margins. It was the same back in the day (as far back as Mark Twain, Hearst/"Kane…

It's just capitalism at work. The period between 1940 and 2000, roughly, is when white men had the most disposable income. Unsurprisingly, most media was produced for them, specifically. Now, white men have a very small piece of the disposable income pie. And, we see lots of diversity in media and big media companies trying to appeal to the widest demographic. So, I'm guessing that Scientific American's readership ju…

This is about declining quality, not increasing diversity (if there's much of the latter).

Today it's mostly cheap gossip (even from major media), rage-inducing pieces, shallow coverage, sponsor ball licking, and "embedded" journalism, that is, exclusives and handouts from the government, the enterprise, and millitary, instead of exposes.

And this goes beyond Scientific American to all media, including those that were already run by and targeted to minorities in the past. It also happened with media in countries without demographic changes, so it's not about whites vs some increased more diverse demographics.

It's the race to the bottom caused by the web, decline of print, rich advertising metrics having them by the balls (not aiming for abstract readers and letting journalists free to write, but being able to micromanage how articles are written to get maximum views).

Newspapers didn't close or go to smaller offices and fire tons of foreign correspondents, staff photographers, and proof editors, for example, "trying to appeal to the widest demographic", but because they couldn't afford them.

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#233

Post by etempleton »

coldtea wrote: post #232
afpx wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's just capitalism at work. The period between 1940 and 2000, roughly, is when white men had the most disposable income. Unsurprisingly, most media was produced for them, specifically. Now, white men have a very small piece of the disposable income pie. And, we see lots of diversity in media and big media companies trying to appeal to the widest demographic. So, I'm guessing that Scientific American's readership ju…

This is about declining quality, not increasing diversity (if there's much of the latter). Today it's mostly cheap gossip (even from major media), rage-inducing pieces, shallow coverage, sponsor ball licking, and "embedded" journalism, that is, exclusives and handouts from the government, the enterprise, and millitary, instead of exposes. And this goes beyond Scientific American to all media, including those that wer…

The internet has killed most print publication, but the internet does not have good profit margins and so every corner is cut to maintain profitability.

A single ad in a single print issue of the New York Times can easily cost a quarter million dollars. A Google Display ad costs pennies. Online advertisements can no longer support real journalism, only click-bait.

Most news organizations have gone back to the idea that they have to then have users pay subscriptions to view their content online. This, unfortunately breaks the sharability of news stories and creates a frustrating user experience.

I only see two paths forward for print new:

1. Bundle with other services print, streaming, etc etc. Most people won’t pay 20 dollars a month or whatever it costs to subscribe to the NYTimes, but they might if it was part of a package that includes other things.

2. News organizations should go non-profit. This alleviates some pressure to have profit margins and opens up donations as a potential revenue stream.

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#234

Post by colordrops »

8note wrote: post #224
colordrops wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are falling for the same binary thinking I'm criticizing. I never said anything about removing social pressures towards healthy lifestyles. I'm not supporting the woke "fat acceptance" stance. I can't stand acceptance of being fat actually and am all for fat shaming. It's a horrible drag on our health system and society. I'm advocating for BOTH systemic and personal responsibility. Why is that such a crazy stance…

What makes you think fat shaming is effective for reducing the number of fat people? Within the regime of shaming, obesity has increased a whole ton.

You are right, it's probably not that effective. I should have framed my statement as I am not against fat shaming, rather than being "for" it. Also, "shame" is a catch-all here for being direct in criticism. I don't support bullying and insults. I certainly don't think acceptance of an unhealthy lifestyle is OK either.

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#236

Post by greenyoda »

nate_meurer wrote: post #163

From the article: On her Twitter, the writer of the piece [Monica McLemore] wrote: "I purposively didn’t quote his work so you could read it for yourself." Not a good look for an aspiring scholar when her very first word is a misapprehension of everyday english.

"Purposive" is a word that I've never seen used before, but it's actually in the dictionary, and one of the meanings is as a synonym of the more usual "purposeful": https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/purposive

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#237

Post by q1w2 »

jollofricepeas wrote: post #199
coldtea wrote: post #192

It's not Scientific American. It's every medium. The NYT of 2022 is not the NYT of the past, and WP is not the WP of Watergate. And it goes beyond the ideological issues. In fact, the same declining quality (though not with the same specifics of course) is the case in every industry where they're fighting for increasingly thinner profit margins. It was the same back in the day (as far back as Mark Twain, Hearst/"Kane…

Yes. Popular journalism has never NOT been biased and at worse absolutely awful for those without power. For that reason, freedom of speech and diverse outlets are important. For whatever reason, people just don’t know much about the history of journalism. - Yellow journalism is a thing and was responsible for riots, murders and possibly a war: https://www.history.com/news/spanish-american-war-yellow-jou... - The pre…

Bad journalism in the past, does not mean journalism isn't worse today than it was overall 50 years ago.

This erroneous argument I see frequently is similar to saying "botched surgeries happened in the past, therefor modern surgery is just as bad as it's always been."

...and then I can go on to list three anecdotes like you did about individuals who died under the surgeons knife 50 years ago.

It's not logical. It's also hard to imagine it as being an honest argument. Can you honestly tell us that you haven't noticed a decline in the quality and accuracy of journalism over your lifetime? The contrast from my perspective is blatant and staggering.

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#238

Post by StanislavPetrov »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #213
tonguez wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Gender studies are a sociological study because there is no gender without some social structure enforcing it." Everything is a social construct, right... Really heady, intelligent stuff. Extremely interesting. Mindblowing. "Not all societies abide the gender binary." There are also a lot of societies where women are considered inferior and don't have any rights.

Are your trying to say that gender is defined exclusively by presence/absence of Y chromosome? If so should we have a gender for YY? What about those whose genes express with both male and female parts? Must such distinctions be legally regulated?

No, we don't need laws for every edge case that occurs in .0001% of the population. Nor should we rearrange society for these edge cases or pretend they are hugely significant.

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#239

Post by jacobn »

q1w2 wrote: post #237
jollofricepeas wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Popular journalism has never NOT been biased and at worse absolutely awful for those without power. For that reason, freedom of speech and diverse outlets are important. For whatever reason, people just don’t know much about the history of journalism. - Yellow journalism is a thing and was responsible for riots, murders and possibly a war: https://www.history.com/news/spanish-american-war-yellow-jou... - The pre…

Bad journalism in the past, does not mean journalism isn't worse today than it was overall 50 years ago. This erroneous argument I see frequently is similar to saying "botched surgeries happened in the past, therefor modern surgery is just as bad as it's always been." ...and then I can go on to list three anecdotes like you did about individuals who died under the surgeons knife 50 years ago. It's not logical. It's a…

If you were born between 1940-2000 then the parent comment would imply that you have seen a decline during your lifetime?

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#240

Post by antifa »

8note wrote: post #224
colordrops wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are falling for the same binary thinking I'm criticizing. I never said anything about removing social pressures towards healthy lifestyles. I'm not supporting the woke "fat acceptance" stance. I can't stand acceptance of being fat actually and am all for fat shaming. It's a horrible drag on our health system and society. I'm advocating for BOTH systemic and personal responsibility. Why is that such a crazy stance…

What makes you think fat shaming is effective for reducing the number of fat people? Within the regime of shaming, obesity has increased a whole ton.

Fat shaming is basically virtue signaling, there's no evidence that it's helped anyone, there's plenty of evidence it bullies people into stress eating and suicide.
Post reply on HN