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

91–100 of 110 posts

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

#91

Post by sclarisse »

908B64B197 wrote: post #85
sclarisse wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean no one talks about it? The media itself (and occasionally even the United States government) were taking about it a lot as they lamented the rise of Fake News and the election of Donald Trump. They asked for it, and suggested if they didn’t get it there might be heavy handed regulation. Facebook gave it to them. A sample. "What Facebook Did to American Democracy" — The Atlantic https://www.theatlanti…

All of these media organizations are in direct competition with Facebook for advertising revenue (and are losing pretty badly). They all have a vested interest in Facebook usage dropping.

That’s fine there’s more. Were we talking Buzzfeed? “How Facebook Failed To Prevent Stop The Steal” https://www.buzzfeednews.com/amphtml/craigsilverman/facebook... “I have blood on my hands” https://www.buzzfeednews.com/amphtml/craigsilverman/facebook...

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

#92

Post by camillomiller »

seneca wrote: post #86
camillomiller wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why is it easier to filter through the agendas of journalists instead of the experts themselves? As professional mouthpieces, journalists are more likely to have agendas, not less. Recent history has show that journalist are more interested in activism than is integrity. I feel like what you're saying is true in some platonic ideal, but it's very far from reality.

It’s true in my own personal experience of freelance journalist, who is aware of the worrying shortcomings of journalistic institutions, and yet is neither a privileged, nor rich, nor stuck to an activist position about anything. Facts come first. Would you all be ok if I’d generalize saying that programmers are smelly introverted incels?

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

#93

Post by camillomiller »

2devnull wrote: post #83
camillomiller wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If people “don’t have the time” to learn then they shouldn’t get to participate in our democracy. Education and due diligence, more easily available now than ever before, are the responsibility of citizens.

But what you’re saying is the contrary of what you want to achieve. The single stakeholders who would inform about their own field lack a systemic view, and they act at least on the personal agenda of furthering their own position in a capitalistic society. That’s a clear incentive that’s not mitigated by any journalistic standard or ethical boundary.

Journalists are a broad and diverse bunch, they have agendas and they’re human but they are called to an ethical conduct that is quintessential to their profession.

Many don’t do that, but grouping them all under one category is a populist approach akin to saying that politicians all steal.

Also, journalism is NOT american tv journalism. In Germany we have immensely talented ethically sound journalists in many top positions in news organizations.

The real problem I see as a journalist is that unfortunately the current misfortunes of the journalistic sector are pushing away first and foremost the best and most talented because staying requires a level of commitment that is just not compatible anymore with the measly reward —- and getting pushed into one bad group like it happened here on this thread.

In my case I can afford to still do the most meaningful journalism possible because I am lucky enough to have developed a successful business on the side that sustains myself without interfering with the topics and news I cover. That’s an insane amount of effort that then inevitably gets belittled by the “journalists are all agenda-driven scumbags” brigades of the internet.

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

#94

Post by HDThoreaun »

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…

> 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.

The first sentence is true because people aren't interested in thoughtful, intelligent and intellectually honest news. It directly contradicts the second sentence.

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

#95

Post by HDThoreaun »

HPsquared wrote: post #25
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.

Even when I'm on an actual newspaper's site, I only briefly check the headline and give the article a token perfunctory skim, then spend the bulk of my time reading the comments.

This feels like a gigantic mistake to me. The comments generally have the least facts and most bias. Another link on HN front page right now is about companies being fined by the government for creating millions of fake personas to comment on social media and news site. With the article you at lest know the author is real.

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

#98

Post by mcphage »

api wrote: post #49
m2f2 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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?

Given the quality of discourse, and rocketing levels of misinformation on the internet—yes! It’s a lot worse!

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

#100

Post by 2devnull »

danparsonson wrote: post #87
2devnull wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use Twitter to follow the select few journalists, academics, government agencies, and writers that I trust and enjoy reading. There is no competition at present. I didn’t wish this situation into being. It’s where I find the world in 2023. With tv you couldn’t just choose to consume better content, but that’s the whole point of Twitter. No bozos. You can word filter “Trump” and get on with life.

Twitter is absolutely chock full of bozos, and while you being able to filter them out is benefit to using the platform, the drawback is that many of them are greatly empowered by it. To follow your example, Trump's relationship with Twitter is well documented - maybe you wouldn't have had to filter him out in the first place if not for his ability to directly reach the public, or the public's avid interest in the ki…

My point is simpler: Twitter gives me the whole universe of content, with knobs to dial in my preferences. There is no alternative platform that allows that. And trump is just one of many word filters I use to prevent ever seeing the bozos. To me, they very literally do not exist.
Post reply on HN