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

61–70 of 110 posts

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

#61

Post by roenxi »

danparsonson wrote: post #54
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…

> 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. Have to disagree with your last sentence there - from what I've seen, people in general…

> I believe The Boston Globe have a strong history...

Based on who's fact checking? The Boston Globe's? For all I know the Boston Globe might be the bees knees, but institutions of journalism should go. It isn't appropriate to put trust in "The Boston Globe". That isn't a real entity with opinions and it isn't an entity that we can vest trust in. Names should be named, individuals should be identified and their record should available.

The internet has allowed us to see behind the curtain. These institutions are full of people, and it is now possible and reasonable to scrutinise the individuals and their records in ways that were previously impossible. And the majority of them have records that are indefensible. As an example, pretty much every election I've seen suggests that the US body politic is a lot more sceptical of the military-industrial complex than the media wants to pretend, I don't think the bloodthirsty consensus would emerge anywhere near as readily - if at all - were people choosing their own talking heads like what is happening in the world of podcasting. That is materially important to the state of the entire globe.

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

#62

Post by Karunamon »

karaterobot wrote: post #34
candiddevmike wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This, is such a succinct summary of what is wrong with the news that I am upvoting it even if you didn't mean it that way. To be clear: the curation social media does is perverse, because it bubbles the worst, most salacious and panicked stories to the top. Reading comments and quotes without having the context of the article itself is a great way to wind up angry and misinformed. If you're a news outlet, designing y…

>the curation social media does is perverse, because it bubbles the worst, most salacious and panicked stories to the top.

As opposed to the mainstream media which… bubbles the worst, most salacious and panicked stories to the top.

Social media did not invent or seemingly run by the aphorism "if it bleeds it leads". If anything, it was a few decades late to the party. At the end of the day, you can't force people to watch something they are not interested in.

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

#63

Post by Sai_ »

jbvchn wrote: post #45
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.

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 i…

If people only want to listen to experts, then “experts” in poverty will emerge who can honestly talk about the travails of the poor.

Why do we need a journalist to act as society’s eyes when the afflicted part itself can speak? Journalism and newspapers are an emergent property of capitalism, not it’s a feature of society.

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

#64

Post by camillomiller »

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…

I am really disappointed that this would be the most voted comment on the topic, as it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what most journalists actually do. Also, grouping journalists from all over the world, and with all sort of different specialization, into one bucket is so shortsighted. I say that as a long-standing journalist, who branched out and supports themselves in order to afford remaining in journalism as a freelancer. But no, all my efforts go under "misdirection and dishonesty" just because I'm a journalist.

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

#65

Post by camillomiller »

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.

You don't have time to do that. People don't have time to listen enough different single-area experts all the time. They also don't have the ability to filter through the agendas of these people, which are pushed with no regard to information integrity. That filter is journalism, and it's still important for functioning democracies.

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

#66

Post by danparsonson »

roenxi wrote: post #61
danparsonson wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Have to disagree with your last sentence there - from what I've seen, people in general…

> I believe The Boston Globe have a strong history... Based on who's fact checking? The Boston Globe's? For all I know the Boston Globe might be the bees knees, but institutions of journalism should go. It isn't appropriate to put trust in "The Boston Globe". That isn't a real entity with opinions and it isn't an entity that we can vest trust in. Names should be named, individuals should be identified and their recor…

> "...That isn't a real entity..."

>

> "...These institutions are full of people..."

I'm confused - are media outlets real entities or not? There is such a thing as company culture, and organisations in general can very much be said to have values, that are set and enforced by the people who work there.

In any case what this whole subthread is apparently arguing for is that we should kick out a bunch of people, and replace them with another bunch of people, and this will somehow yield better results? It's nonsense. You only have to look at Twitter to see what that world would look like.

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

#67

Post by nearmuse »

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…

No matter how grass-roots you imagine journalism to be on the path of becoming I believe it will end up resettling into a specialized organization, because it requires cross-domain research, an ability to vulgarize, and an ability to investigate and witness events, better than any of the individuals and organizations you listed.

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

#68

Post by mindslight »

zpeti wrote: post #37

As much as many people here will hate this, it’s worth looking at what daily wire does and why it works, they have $200m+ revenue and are profitable. In a recent interview Ben Shapiro said it was never about building a publication but building an audience who you can sell products to. Which is why they are selling films and other content like lectures too. Many left wing orgs could do the same, but all they do is new…

Selling low quality products to low information readers/viewers/listeners based on a political message doesn't work in the mainstream context. Rather "right wing news" isn't actually news but rather editorial for the largest "persecuted minority" group, which can be used as an angle for businesses that support the cause.

Some examples from the talk radio I was listening to on a little road trip I just took:

An "anti-communist" MVNO. "Avoid giving your money to those big companies that hate your values". With rates that are higher than Tracfone or even Cricket, and ultimately just reselling big carrier service.

"Invest in gold". I own a bunch of gold myself, but paying higher commissions (and/or management fees) to support radio ads and other hand holding is most certainly not the way to go.

"Avoid probate". Not important (and perhaps even harmful) in most states that have adopted the Uniform Probate Code. But it's a good avenue for upselling expensive trusts and the like.

(And of course much self promotion by the hosts, and promotion of other media in the same sphere)

The equivalent for the left wing would be something like a site for LGBTQ+ people that was marketing small businesses owned/staffed by LGBTQ+ people who understand you. Which I'm sure does work. But it doesn't work for mainstream news outlets that target a broad audience, regardless of how much the right wing insists that those outlets are "leftist".

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

#69

Post by makeitdouble »

AraceliHarker wrote: post #59
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…

Journalists are supposed to investigate, podcasters are supposed to have an opinion about the news, but not investigate itself. That's why the article says that journalism as a profession is dead.

> podcasters are supposed to have an opinion about the news, but not investigate itself.

While I see a traditional framing for the role of journalist, podcaster is a new job, so why should it be bound under those assumptions ?

I tried looking at my podcast list, and for most of them the hosts are either people in the field, basically on the ground ehen it comes to the news (when they're not creating the news themselves) and long form reports, including interviews and original research.

There's "news" podcasts out there, but coming from NPR for instance I'm not sure it's much different from the press/tv ones.

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

#70

Post by javajosh »

wrycoder wrote: post #28
javajosh wrote: post #10

>"So what do we do for money now? I get this feeling when youtubers complain about being demonetized. Like, why were you monetized in the first place? Shouldn't this be a hobby for you, where your day job is actually helping people? Once a profession is named, there seems to be an expectation of durability. But market fundamentalism allows for no such constants. All professions are subject to the market; if there is…

There are many YouTube channels that are more helpful to other people than most day jobs would ever be.

I'm not saying the content is bad. I'm saying the expectation to get paid for content is bad. Grant is still going to do 3blue1brown even if he doesn't get paid because he cares about math and about teaching math. If he quit his day job it would force him to make new videos he wasn't 100% passionate about; it would force him to change his content to suit the algorithm.
Post reply on HN