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

101–110 of 110 posts

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

#101

Post by 2devnull »

camillomiller wrote: post #93
2devnull wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

Or, on the contrary, the dismal state of much of US media is causing people to seek out and pay more for higher quality journalism than they otherwise would. That seems to be the substack business model in a nutshell. And thank you for doing good despite the hostile public sentiment.

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

#102

Post by cafard »

stainablesteel wrote: post #32
lr4444lr wrote: post #14

One of the silver linings to AI mass generated fake news IMHO is that the professional gatekeepers of traditional media will once again be appreciated for the value they add in verification. The so-called "new media" with few exceptions is totally parasitic on them to do the real work which they would use just enough to maintain respectability over their clickbait editorializing. I don't think it's at all a positive…

establishment media does nothing but gaslight and ignore important information i'm a little ways west of east palestine and when that train derailed it was twitter and reddit that warned me, the media did nothing plus there are now a ton of individuals across multiple social media sites that are showing information as proper data for a more intellectually honest interpretation of various global trends, crime rates, a…

Which media do you rely on for local news?

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

#103

Post by friend_and_foe »

I think it's pretty obvious what comes next: people talking to each other.

Journalism as it was structured is mapped one-to-many. The internet is not structured that way, and attempting to simply disseminate information is not going to cut it.

This change necessarily includes echo chambers. We had the early spirit science lizard people ones and we have the ones we have now, but when people can choose who to talk to and share information with you will get this phenomenon. The age of a common narrative binding a diverse society is over.

Journalists are simply not going to get paid to do it anymore. You'll have to do the independent journalist thing, find sponsors for your content, host your own website, do the legwork to get an audience, but the corporate ladder for journalists simply no longer exists.

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

#104

Post by roer »

javajosh wrote: post #70
wrycoder wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't think Grant has a day job besides his 3b1b stuff?

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

#106

Post by another2another »

2devnull wrote: post #100
danparsonson wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

OK, fair enough - but did you find these people on Twitter itself, or did you find out about them after reading some other mainstream media outlet and then followed your curiosity?

I would guess lots of people get famous on popular outlets _first_ and are then followed on Twitter.

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

#107

Post by iudqnolq »

wesapien wrote: post #71

This is a good thing. Both have overstayed their welcome. Vice made interesting stories in the early 2010s and I watched some of it. The founder of Vice has been so far removed from where he started that he just DGAF. I really didn't care for BuzzFed at all except for the food videos. It was great to see those group of people spin up their own an channel (About To Eat). Another example is the Bon Apetit YouTube chann…

The other founder of Vice Media left to found the Proud Boys.

I don't think their early years were the hight. The mid 2010s were pretty good though.

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

#108

Post by tomjen3 »

> “There will always be stories that need assigning,” I told the students in my lecture, “always be an audience who needs something to read.” I still believe that’s true. But with the industry being what it is, career seems like the wrong framework—it’s more like a monetized hobby.

No, there isn't. Because print news doesn't, just, compete with social media, it competes with games, with youtube and netflix and, yes, Facebook.

I realized some time ago that I only really need to know about specific news that is very local (impact If you want something to cover local news, you are better of with an AI or a local Facebook group. For the global news, you can take you pick from any of the big media companies, they are pretty much identical.

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

#109

Post by tomjen3 »

lr4444lr wrote: post #14

One of the silver linings to AI mass generated fake news IMHO is that the professional gatekeepers of traditional media will once again be appreciated for the value they add in verification. The so-called "new media" with few exceptions is totally parasitic on them to do the real work which they would use just enough to maintain respectability over their clickbait editorializing. I don't think it's at all a positive…

I doubt it. People generally want to be told what they believe, not what is right.

I also doubt the journalists do enough real fact checking to matter.

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

#110

Post by jfengel »

pkd wrote: post #88
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…

Honest question: how many people employed as journalists do you personally know? I ask because this sort of comment against an entire profession is generally a symptom of a level of separation that allows for the lack of nuance like "journalists are dishonest". I am troubled by these views shared by so many on HN too. Journalism, especially the editorialised version, as a profession is extremely valuable. There are c…

I do know a bunch of journalists, real journos from the 70s and 80s.

They'd really hate to be characterized by "misdirection and dishonesty". That was absolutely not what they did, and their editors would not have allowed it. None of them had any financial incentive to be exciting or polarizing. They all very much wanted to get out the truth of the situation, which was a lot more work.

But they are also acutely aware how bad their profession has become. Even before the Internet, 24-hour news made journalism about attracting attention. They expected to put out one newspaper a day, or one TV broadcast in the evening. They competed against a small handful of other local media outlets -- they wanted to be the first, but did not expect people to come seeking their specific version of the story. They thought their audience viewed the news as a dull duty, not entertainment.

The Internet has made it so, so much worse. The real news outlets still gather news (the wire services, a few major newspapers), but practically everything labeled "news" is secondary, tertiary, or worse. The real primary-source journalists are much like they always were, but few people read those directly. They are mostly fodder for people making entertainment, which does indeed come with lots of "misdirection and dishonesty".

If you want factful reporting it's still out there -- via the same few wire services and primary-source newspapers. It's not hard to find -- start anywhere and click on their supporting links until you get to the boots on the ground.

Post reply on HN