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

Delayed Gratification – Proud to Be 'Last to Breaking News'

slow-journalism.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 225 posts

Re: Delayed Gratification – Proud to Be 'Last to Breaking News'

#171

Post by dwedge »

velcrovan wrote: post #158
dwedge wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand and appreciate your point, but takes like brexit are nuanced. They might be overall bad, but they will always have some benefits and in my opinion journalism (especially economic journalism) should explain those benefits even if the point is to show that they are more than cancelled out by the negatives. Without this kind of reporting this is exactly how the Overton window gets moved. I think that when i…

If there were any upsides to brexit I've never heard what they were. (Though, also: not a brit)

Faster and cheaper negotiation of covid vaccines plus negotiated first delivery of them because of not requiring the sign off of every country first was one highly publicised example

Re: Delayed Gratification – Proud to Be 'Last to Breaking News'

#172

Post by wraptile »

I've been subscribed to Delayed Gratification for a year now and really enjoy it. Brilliant editorial with beautiful and easily digestible infographics. My only gripe is that at times it's a bit too UK centric at times, but I guess it's understandable this being a UK-based publisher.

Re: Delayed Gratification – Proud to Be 'Last to Breaking News'

#173

Post by Jensson »

BeetleB wrote: post #96
openasocket wrote: post #51

One thing that has really frustrated me with "mainstream media" in the last few years is that the level of effort being put into journalism seems to be on decline. I feel like half of the news articles are just a collection of quotes from officials or politicians in public statements, being regurgitated without any additional effort. Outrageous claims are just taken at face value, or at best just put alongside quotes…

How much money are you directly paying per month to news organizations? News organizations have been in decline for a few decades because of two reasons: 1. Lack of ad revenue (all vacuumed up by Google) 2. Loss of subscribers because they can get free news online Don't expect quality from people not being paid much.

> News organizations have been in decline for a few decades because of two reasons:

The primary reason is the click metrics, they realized quality didn't matter as much as emotions and outrage and validating peoples own beliefs.

It doesn't matter how much you pay for it when they will just invest more into those things. You can see this in gaming, the more people paid for Ubisoft games the more toxic transactions Ubisoft put into them.

Re: Delayed Gratification – Proud to Be 'Last to Breaking News'

#174

Post by hhh »

fsckboy wrote: post #159
coatmatter wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whenever I encounter someone who jumps at the first opportunity to criticise "mainstream media", I ask them what their preferred outlets are. I tend to not get a response, which to me is quite telling.

if mainstream media has gone downhill, why would somebody have a preferred outlet? What's your preferred outlet?

your preferred outlet would be something not mainstream then, it doesn't mean it has to be some mega conglomerate.

Re: Delayed Gratification – Proud to Be 'Last to Breaking News'

#175

Post by ChrisRR »

munk-a wrote: post #61

It turns out there are a few stories that are important to be immediately aware of (declarations of war, local events like service outages or celebration - and only if they're planned with short notice). Most of the rest of the news is important for the purpose of holding people to account but outside the influence of regular people. We can live in a society where a massive scandal happens and it takes two months for…

My anxiety levels were massively reduced when I stopped reading the news years back, including blocking any "top story" sidebars, unsubbing from major subreddits.

Sure I'm late to finding out some important information, but it's better than every piece of news that doesn't personally affect me being treated as if it's a world ending event that I must know about right now

Re: Delayed Gratification – Proud to Be 'Last to Breaking News'

#176

Post by ChrisRR »

regexorcist wrote: post #116
smoe wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

15 years after making the decision, while working for a major news outlet, to no longer read “the news,” I can pretty confidently say: if something is important enough for you to know, it will reach you eventually anyway. Consuming news has little to do with being informed. Quite the opposite, at times.

6 or 7 years here, no news or socials. I keep telling people the same thing, you find out about the important stuff real quick regardless. The rest is noise and rage bait.

It's sad how effective rage bait is on many people, and how oblivious they are to it.

Re: Delayed Gratification – Proud to Be 'Last to Breaking News'

#177

Post by amelius »

munk-a wrote: post #61

It turns out there are a few stories that are important to be immediately aware of (declarations of war, local events like service outages or celebration - and only if they're planned with short notice). Most of the rest of the news is important for the purpose of holding people to account but outside the influence of regular people. We can live in a society where a massive scandal happens and it takes two months for…

We need a hippocratic oath for ethical journalism.

And we need to stop taking anyone seriously who doesn't abide by it.

Kick them out of mainstream media if necessary.

Re: Delayed Gratification – Proud to Be 'Last to Breaking News'

#178

Post by djeastm »

smoe wrote: post #74
munk-a wrote: post #61

It turns out there are a few stories that are important to be immediately aware of (declarations of war, local events like service outages or celebration - and only if they're planned with short notice). Most of the rest of the news is important for the purpose of holding people to account but outside the influence of regular people. We can live in a society where a massive scandal happens and it takes two months for…

15 years after making the decision, while working for a major news outlet, to no longer read “the news,” I can pretty confidently say: if something is important enough for you to know, it will reach you eventually anyway. Consuming news has little to do with being informed. Quite the opposite, at times.

>if something is important enough for you to know, it will reach you eventually anyway

Through a friend or family member who's been watching the news?

Re: Delayed Gratification – Proud to Be 'Last to Breaking News'

#179

Post by inigyou »

BeetleB wrote: post #96
openasocket wrote: post #51

One thing that has really frustrated me with "mainstream media" in the last few years is that the level of effort being put into journalism seems to be on decline. I feel like half of the news articles are just a collection of quotes from officials or politicians in public statements, being regurgitated without any additional effort. Outrageous claims are just taken at face value, or at best just put alongside quotes…

How much money are you directly paying per month to news organizations? News organizations have been in decline for a few decades because of two reasons: 1. Lack of ad revenue (all vacuumed up by Google) 2. Loss of subscribers because they can get free news online Don't expect quality from people not being paid much.

99% of everything is crap, even the ones you pay for. Some are good and worth supporting, like 404 Media.

everything is broadly declining, too, as we grow up taking it for granted while the older generation retires, and we also are too busy working menial jobs to pay the rent.

Re: Delayed Gratification – Proud to Be 'Last to Breaking News'

#180

Post by inigyou »

michaelmrose wrote: post #165
fsckboy wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

BBC, CNN, and al jazeera are complete trash. Economist always was good but I have not read it in a while so I can't speak to it. If it has not changed, that would be great.

Let's pick one. Why is the BBC trash?

It only covers Israel/Palestine from the pro-Israel side?
Post reply on HN