One of the things I've noticed here in Britain is that journalists don't even try to make sense of events, and instead the 'analysis' is just the opinions of uninformed bystanders.
Journalism is rearranging the deckchairs. It needs to reinvent itself
41–50 of 67 posts
Re: Journalism is rearranging the deckchairs. It needs to reinvent itself
#42This is about the journalism that is serious. That tells stories, reports, and goes deep into subjects.
My impression is that most media today is nowhere near this. They're just cheap dopamine source, containing only "news", not any serious discussion.
"This ____ grills ______ on his comments about __________." -- this is typical American title, but in other countries this sort of news is abundant, and differs only in wording, not the essence.
A local media news: Lebron James died in a crash. Which happened at the other side of the world in another country, nothing to do with the place itself. Because the media is owned by a holding company, and metrics are measured and aggressively optimized.
Trump became a source of cheap dopamine for every non-serious media in the world. "American president said that X. ".
"Traffic jams in city X reached level 9!" (screenshot of a mobile map with traffic layer)
Re: Journalism is rearranging the deckchairs. It needs to reinvent itself
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reminds me a lot of the book Manufacturing Consent, where it breaks down the split between 'journalism' and 'propaganda'. As long as there is a monetary incentive to emphasize certain things and ignore others, it will always ultimately be a form of propaganda.
I think Manufacturing Consent is a deeply outdated book. It was fine for the 80s, but if you use it as your source for how the media works today you're going to reach silly conclusions and see outcomes you can't account for. The biggest problem with it is that distribution costs for media are now zero, so it's easy to "start your own" and it's easy for audiences to switch away from outlets which don't pander to them…
Also, it's very hard to tell what the audience is organically rejecting from what various organizations (foreign or domestic) with a vested interest in the coverage are trying to suppress or what seemingly unrelated algorithmic processes are sidelining. There are so many feedback loops and their response time is now on the order of the descsion time that the people "calling the shots" are likely as in the dark as the rest of us.
Re: Journalism is rearranging the deckchairs. It needs to reinvent itself
#44Part of the problem is deciding what journalism is . I don't mean that in terms of the craft -- I was a journalist for many years in the legacy media. We knew what we were doing, and were proud of our work. The issue is that like any other art/craft/trade, being good at it isn't enough. Is this a charity? A public good? A business? A hobby? Good journalism is very expensive. It requires people doing real work who nee…
>But who does general news benefit? How do we get them to pay?
NYTimes Revenue - $2.9B Daily Mail Group - £1.1Bn
Getting them/advertisers to pay isn't a problem!
Re: Journalism is rearranging the deckchairs. It needs to reinvent itself
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's news for entertainment, and news for making informed decisions. I suppose in a healthy democracy, it would be in the people's best interest to have unbiased and thoroughly investigated the news available so voters can make the best decision for themselves and the country. It wouldn't be profitable so it would have to be publicly funded like PBS News, BBC, CBC. And, well, it was good while it lasted but politi…
"it would be in the people's best interest" -- the problem is that as we're seeing, people do not seem to agree, at least not when voting with their wallets. And who determines what is "unbiased?" If I don't match your biases, am I biased?
Seeking out experts, eye witnesses, and sources of information and reporting on them as plainly and dryly without altering the facts and given statements whether you, your sponsors, the government or audience likes or agrees with them is about as unbiased as one can hope for, no?
Re: Journalism is rearranging the deckchairs. It needs to reinvent itself
#46It's not going to reinvent itself when it is compromised of few, like minded people. Government would need to step in, but the current US admin is in bed with media, so we'll be here a while, at least.
So...it's your impression that the media and the current US administration like each other? Interesting. That is not the impression I've gotten.
Re: Journalism is rearranging the deckchairs. It needs to reinvent itself
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
"it would be in the people's best interest" -- the problem is that as we're seeing, people do not seem to agree, at least not when voting with their wallets. And who determines what is "unbiased?" If I don't match your biases, am I biased?
Seeking out experts, eye witnesses, and sources of information and reporting on them as plainly and dryly without altering the facts and given statements whether you, your sponsors, the government or audience likes or agrees with them is about as unbiased as one can hope for, no?
Absolutely no.
Even the basic act of deciding which stories to cover can be seen as bias.
Which experts are we seeking out? What are their agendas?
Altering facts and statements is not bias, it is incorrect reporting. Anything reported as factual that is not is wrong, period, full stop.
But framing? You can frame a story any way you see fit.
And as I was trying to get to in the earlier comment, "bias" is in the eye of the beholder. What might be straight down the middle for one reader could be wildly biased to another.
Re: Journalism is rearranging the deckchairs. It needs to reinvent itself
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seeking out experts, eye witnesses, and sources of information and reporting on them as plainly and dryly without altering the facts and given statements whether you, your sponsors, the government or audience likes or agrees with them is about as unbiased as one can hope for, no?
Absolutely no. Even the basic act of deciding which stories to cover can be seen as bias. Which experts are we seeking out? What are their agendas? Altering facts and statements is not bias, it is incorrect reporting. Anything reported as factual that is not is wrong, period, full stop. But framing? You can frame a story any way you see fit. And as I was trying to get to in the earlier comment, "bias" is in the eye o…
Ah, I understand. You're on the demonize train.
Re: Journalism is rearranging the deckchairs. It needs to reinvent itself
#49Part of the problem is deciding what journalism is . I don't mean that in terms of the craft -- I was a journalist for many years in the legacy media. We knew what we were doing, and were proud of our work. The issue is that like any other art/craft/trade, being good at it isn't enough. Is this a charity? A public good? A business? A hobby? Good journalism is very expensive. It requires people doing real work who nee…
>But who does general news benefit? How do we get them to pay? NYTimes Revenue - $2.9B Daily Mail Group - £1.1Bn Getting them/advertisers to pay isn't a problem!
"Close to 3,500 newspapers have vanished..." in the last 25 years. https://localnewsinitiative.northwestern.edu/projects/state-...
Re: Journalism is rearranging the deckchairs. It needs to reinvent itself
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
Absolutely no. Even the basic act of deciding which stories to cover can be seen as bias. Which experts are we seeking out? What are their agendas? Altering facts and statements is not bias, it is incorrect reporting. Anything reported as factual that is not is wrong, period, full stop. But framing? You can frame a story any way you see fit. And as I was trying to get to in the earlier comment, "bias" is in the eye o…
Ah, I understand. You're on the demonize train.
Not demonizing. Trying to convey that this is a much more complicated subject than you seem to want to admit.
Feels like https://xkcd.com/793/