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

All the exciting media outlets are dying – what comes next?

thewalrus.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 110 posts

Re: All the exciting media outlets are dying – what comes next?

#41

Post by scrollaway »

flappyeagle wrote: post #16
scrollaway wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It’s reputation washing for a link farm.

What is your evidence for this claim?

Re: All the exciting media outlets are dying – what comes next?

#43

Post by tester457 »

flappyeagle wrote: post #9
pembrook wrote: post #6

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…

What are you on about? I have to link to external websites from mine? Lost the plot on this one.

Facebook, Twitter, Elon etc have said external links rank more poorly in the algorithm.

That is why facebook is rampant with people stealing others videos and reposting it on the platform.

Re: All the exciting media outlets are dying – what comes next?

#44

Post by m2f2 »

FredPret wrote: post #30
roenxi wrote: post #17

The major problem I've observed is that the most important topic is politics - ie, what should we do next? 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 sai…

Exactly. Now that everyone has a megaphone, there will be rockstar economists, mathematicians, computer scientists, and the like that distribute their message directly. I would much rather get info directly from a popular expert than from an English major who interviewed said expert. Even better - I get to decide which people I regard as experts, and not the journalist.

If you know the topic at hand you can somewhat believe you're good at finding the Expert.

If you don't know jack about topic X, you'll end up trusting another newbie, or a charlatan.

Or, you can go around talking to lots of people, go search professors and professionals and ask them. Here you are, welcome to Journalism.

Oh and the same works for photographers (my 24yo son is one of them).

Re: All the exciting media outlets are dying – what comes next?

#45

Post by jbvchn »

FredPret wrote: post #30
roenxi wrote: post #17

The major problem I've observed is that the most important topic is politics - ie, what should we do next? 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 sai…

Exactly. Now that everyone has a megaphone, there will be rockstar economists, mathematicians, computer scientists, and the like that distribute their message directly. I would much rather get info directly from a popular expert than from an English major who interviewed said expert. Even better - I get to decide which people I regard as experts, and not the journalist.

How does having "rockstar" experts broadcasting "their message" help unveil the stories of the unfortunate in their daily lives so that society can understand what ails it?

Journalism is not just the repeating of "expert opinions," it's supposed to be about investigation and collecting evidence and taking to normal, not expert people, about the current events affecting their lives.

Truly if we have lost that and it is replaced by "rockstars" with their own message it will be a huge loss to society.

Re: All the exciting media outlets are dying – what comes next?

#46

Post by blululu »

morkalork wrote: post #23

It's a shame since Vice's "Motherboard" was pretty good and even broke a few big stories. They understood hacking and tech in ways that traditional media didn't and weren't afraid dig in and involved. Print papers always were so passive, reporting other's investigative work.

It’s a matter of costs. Publishing long form online is cheap and can generate more revenue (a good article can generate a ton of engagement). Publishing long form in print is very expensive and maybe serves as marketing for a daily. Serious investigative work was always expensive. Only large papers could afford to do it and mostly did it for honor/prestige.

Re: All the exciting media outlets are dying – what comes next?

#47

Post by tootie »

roenxi wrote: post #17

The major problem I've observed is that the most important topic is politics - ie, what should we do next? 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 sai…

That's a pretty awful take IMO. A lot of journalism is bad and always has been. But a lot of it is absolutely necessary. There's plenty of terrific newsrooms that produce a lot more light than heat. And all the independent media on substack or running a YT channel or whatever would be nowhere without mainstream news. Few if any have the resources to do much original reporting. I read a few and they are extremely dependent on interpreting the reporting they received from other sources that they are digesting and repackaging for their audience. Frequently an audience that is expecting a particular spin on everything.

Re: All the exciting media outlets are dying – what comes next?

#48

Post by jeremyjh »

javajosh wrote: post #31
roer wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand your comparison to youtubers? They get paid for their work, and complain when the platform demonetizes their videos without being transparent in their reasoning. I understand if you meant that they were complaining about their views decreasing, or their content not being compatible with the guidelines of the platform, but that is in my experience not that common. It feels to me like that part of yo…

>...a stab at the value of youtube as a job in society Yes. Not to pick on youtube - it's just the strongest of the group of entities of which I'd include buzzfeed, vice and the rest. The world is saturated with entertainment, and it's not good for anyone. It's not good that kids grow up wanting to be youtubers not scientists. It's not good for the entertainers who chase the algorithm instead of building things or he…

YouTube is a lot of different things for different people, and serves niches that would simply go unserved without them. Comparing them to Vice - well maybe that is valid for some clickbait “news” channel but I like to watch - as one example - instructive chess videos that pretty much wouldn’t exist on any other platforms.

Re: All the exciting media outlets are dying – what comes next?

#49

Post by api »

m2f2 wrote: post #44
FredPret wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Now that everyone has a megaphone, there will be rockstar economists, mathematicians, computer scientists, and the like that distribute their message directly. I would much rather get info directly from a popular expert than from an English major who interviewed said expert. Even better - I get to decide which people I regard as experts, and not the journalist.

If you know the topic at hand you can somewhat believe you're good at finding the Expert. If you don't know jack about topic X, you'll end up trusting another newbie, or a charlatan. Or, you can go around talking to lots of people, go search professors and professionals and ask them. Here you are, welcome to Journalism. Oh and the same works for photographers (my 24yo son is one of them).

Is picking a newbie or a charlatan that much worse than listening to a journalist who interviews a newbie or a charlatan? Or one who doesn’t understand the subject (as is usually the case) and totally mangles what they get from an actual expert?

I’d rather at least take my chances at picking an actual expert.

You can see how bad journalism is when you read a popular article on something you do understand deeply. Now consider that it’s probably about that bad on every subject.

The problem is that you must understand something deeply to report on it well or describe it well. Only a programmer can be a good journalist on software. Only a former military person can do good war reporting. Etc. If you don’t know what you are talking about you can’t talk about it well.

Re: All the exciting media outlets are dying – what comes next?

#50

Post by flappyeagle »

scrollaway wrote: post #41
flappyeagle wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s reputation washing for a link farm.

What is your evidence for this claim?

Whenever anyone correctly observed that buzzfeed has made the internet worse, someone always comes galloping in on their white horse with the meme “but buzzfeed news is a real serious outlet!”

This has always been its purpose. It exists for the same reason the BP and Exxon have nominal investments in “clean energy”. The same reason that Koch industries donates to the arts.

They’re paying for indulgences and the HN well-akchually crowd buys it hook line and sinker.

If you don’t want to take my word for it you can take Peretti’s and the words of the Washington post.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2022/03/23/buzzfeed-sta...

“I don’t think they ever gave news a real chance to make money,” she said. BuzzFeed chief executive Jonah Peretti long touted the news team’s burnishing effect on the company’s overall reputation“

They never intended for it to be a self sustaining business. It existed for reputation enhancement of the parent brand.

Post reply on HN