11–20 of 110 posts
A big factor in the decline of internet media companies that nobody talks about—every single dominant social platform (except this one) now aggressively penalizes external links in their algorithms. This should be illegal for any dominant platform IMO, external links are the lifeblood of a free and open internet. They are the only release valve from the walled gardens the inevitably result from human power-law cluste…
I think most media outlets should look at LWN as a model for sustainability: niche stories, hyper focused on what their audience is interested in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Buzzfeed, the legit news arm that is, avtually owon a Pulitzer.
Proving more the degradation in the quality of the Pulitzer than anything else
Edit since people are flagging this:
It’s incredible how the right amount of cynicism can drive you to be utterly blind to the benefits certain things have. Be those high quality news reports, or curing polio.
And blind to their structure. Such as, for example and regardless of the organisation’s name, different people working at Buzzfeed News and Buzzfeed. Or Microsoft and the gates foundation.
A big factor in the decline of internet media companies that nobody talks about—every single dominant social platform (except this one) now aggressively penalizes external links in their algorithms. This should be illegal for any dominant platform IMO, external links are the lifeblood of a free and open internet. They are the only release valve from the walled gardens the inevitably result from human power-law cluste…
Social media became better at curating news than the news sites themselves, IMO, and most folks end up just reading comments or quotes in the comments. There's also too much noise on most media outlets. I think most media outlets should look at LWN as a model for sustainability: niche stories, hyper focused on what their audience is interested in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Proving more the degradation in the quality of the Pulitzer than anything else
What do you think Buzzfeed News is exactly? Edit since people are flagging this: It’s incredible how the right amount of cynicism can drive you to be utterly blind to the benefits certain things have. Be those high quality news reports, or curing polio. And blind to their structure. Such as, for example and regardless of the organisation’s name, different people working at Buzzfeed News and Buzzfeed. Or Microsoft and…
The world of journalists is nearly the last place on earth people should be looking for political information. There are lies, few serious attempts at understanding the views of opponents, disinterest in the implications of the policies expounded and not even straightforward reporting of what people actually said.
A major problem that the journalists face is that we live in an era where any person with a microphone can broadcast their opinion, and it turns out the thoughtful, intelligent and intellectually honest types don't work in media outlets. People are going to start organising to listen to people of higher quality than journalists. We need high quality information to make informed political decisions. People with journalism degrees, as a community, are not providing that quality.
The internet has revealed just how deeply the misdirection and dishonesty extended. There is too much sunlight now for journalism as an institution to survive in the form it always has. We're going to be better off with a mix of economists, religious leaders, political personalities, technical experts, longform discussion and a melange of small- or big-time podcasters.
The article uses the qualifier 'exciting' and cites specific examples of what the author considers 'exciting'. Leaving that qualifier in the headline makes this far less panicky than it first sounds.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Buzzfeed, the legit news arm that is, avtually owon a Pulitzer.
Proving more the degradation in the quality of the Pulitzer than anything else