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

When did writing in major newspapers become so bad?

mleverything.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 307 posts

Re: When did writing in major newspapers become so bad?

#131

Post by gxqoz »

keiferski wrote: post #123
gxqoz wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I started reading about 10 years ago so don't have a great reference for earlier writing. But just looking at some of ones from this year highlighted on longform, there was some great stuff here: https://longform.org/archive/publications/new-yorker For instance "Trolling the Great Outdoors", "Why Does the Pandemic Seem to Be Hitting Some Countries Harder Than Others?", and "Fish Farming Is Feeding the Globe. What’s t…

It's not that they are universally terrible now, just that they've fallen into the same political-hype blackhole as everyone else. I remember looking at their home page a few years ago and seeing the top 10 articles all being about Trump. That obsession with politics didn't really happen in previous eras and even when it did, it was counterbalanced by some legitimate literary criticism. Looking at their home page now…

It's certainly true that it's gotten more topical and hence more overtly political. Part of this is surely a change to having more of an online readership (and online-only articles). When you're writing a magazine piece, it can be at best a week behind the news. This constraint doesn't exist for online pieces.

That being said, I think the New Yorker still offers some of the best and nuanced political analysis. I certainly prefer it to the New York Times.

Re: When did writing in major newspapers become so bad?

#132

Post by SeanLuke »

I've found editing, not writing, to have gone right down the drain in modern newspapers. It's clear many stories are poorly edited if at all.

I don't want to be That Guy, but I've also noted a huge increase in terrible, incredible examples of the need for the Serial Comma, all by clueless editors. One big one was last week in the WP:

> Jackson’s former colleagues vastly disapproved of his conduct and leadership within the White House Medical Unit, including screaming, belittling colleagues and fits of rage, which demoralized nurses and doctors, the report found. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2021/03/03/...)

So what we've learned is that Jackson's conduct and leadership somehow included rounding up colleagues who screamed and belittled. And the presence of these horrible colleagues, plus his fits of rage, demoralized nurses and doctors...

Re: When did writing in major newspapers become so bad?

#133

Post by prepend »

sanderjd wrote: post #124
aerovistae wrote: post #35

> So I threw in the entire text into Hemingway, an app that identifies poor or confusing writing. I found this interesting, because it seemed unbelievable to me that an app could be able to tell good writing from bad writing in a reliable or useful way. So I took excerpts from Shirley Jackson's The Lottery and pasted them in. (For anyone unfamiliar with it, The Lottery is considered a masterpiece of a short story, an…

But I've always wondered: why should business writing be like Hemingway's writing? He wasn't writing for that audience. Seems like it would be better to find examples of good writing for a business audience and use those. Same thing for journalistic writing: that's not what Hemingway was doing. Maybe take all the Pulitzer winning journalism from a few decades and use that or something. But it just seems weird to pick…

It’s a good question and one I don’t know how to answer absolutely.

The reason why I think it most generally applies to “business writing” is because this area is most likely to value efficiency over others.

I don’t think it’s meant to say business folk should write like Hemingway, but that Hemingway is the most popular writer in this style.

Re: When did writing in major newspapers become so bad?

#134

Post by ghaff »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #121
function_seven wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you're willing to pay what it would actually cost. Not calling you a liar, just noting that a truly local news source, operating at the level that they did 20 years ago, would cost so much more today. The revenue for a local paper used to come primarily from advertising that doesn't exist anymore. Movie theater listings, classified ads, auto dealership sections. The Real Estate "section". Each of those…

This is ignoring the traditional economics though. Newspapers would charge for a subscription and sell advertising. The subscription fee would essentially just pay for printing and distribution of the physical newspaper, and then advertising provided the margin. Now advertising is in the dumps but the internet has removed the capital and operating costs of a printing press and physically delivering dead tree pages to…

But how many newspapers/magazines can get a critical mass of people to spend $100/year? The NYT, WSJ, Economist, maybe New Yorker?

Re: When did writing in major newspapers become so bad?

#135

Post by andi999 »

aerovistae wrote: post #122
andi999 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am a bit surprised about: " The Lottery is considered a masterpiece of a short story, and is widely taught in American high schools." Really? I have difficulties understanding this. Is it because it is interesting for the kids through its shock value and manageable length? But this then looks to me like declaring ketchup to be vegetables so enough veggies are eaten at the canteen.

Well, I suppose you could read some critical analysis of it if you're interested in why it's considered great; I'm no expert. For what it's worth I agree with its status in the canon: it's a powerful and carefully articulated story in a very compact form with a unique, exciting, and thought-provoking premise. The perfect short story.

Yes it is good entertainment, but wouldnt then the kids read those anyways?

Re: When did writing in major newspapers become so bad?

#136

Post by rossdavidh »

Wanted: a curated list of quality journalists, with Patreon accounts or similar, looking for independent backing so that they can spend the time to write news articles of real quality, at a reasonable pace.

That sentence was probably too long, but perhaps you understand what I mean anyway. If this already exists, please inform me where.

Re: When did writing in major newspapers become so bad?

#137

Post by AnthonyMouse »

ghaff wrote: post #134
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is ignoring the traditional economics though. Newspapers would charge for a subscription and sell advertising. The subscription fee would essentially just pay for printing and distribution of the physical newspaper, and then advertising provided the margin. Now advertising is in the dumps but the internet has removed the capital and operating costs of a printing press and physically delivering dead tree pages to…

But how many newspapers/magazines can get a critical mass of people to spend $100/year? The NYT, WSJ, Economist, maybe New Yorker?

What's a critical mass? You sell subscriptions and hire journalists in proportion to how many people subscribe.

The "critical mass" to hire the first journalist is like 1000 people.

Huge publications like that only exist because of the historical capital cost of a printing press. Using traditional numbers, e.g. a city of 500k people 10% of whom subscribe to the local outlet, you can fund ~50 full-time local journalists. Which is the same whether they all work for one publication or they all work for themselves.

"Publications" will probably become subscription aggregators. So instead of 50,000 people each paying $10/month to one of 50 independent journalists such that they each have 1000 subscribers, all 50,000 people pay $10/month to the aggregator and then get access to the work of all 50 journalists.

Re: When did writing in major newspapers become so bad?

#138

Post by prepend »

michaelhoffman wrote: post #3

Newspapers have been laying off copy editors right and left in recent years. A reduction in the quality and clarity of writing is an obvious and predictable outcome. https://j-source.ca/article/copy-editors-laid-off-more-than-... https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2017/by-dismantlin...

It’s a vicious cycle with cost cutting removing these positions, leading to fewer people reading and relying on the paper, leading to more cost cutting.

I also think that there’s fewer pedants complaining in letters to the editor about these kinds of errors. And probably fewer editors paid to read any letters.

Finally, since any discussions I have with friends about the NYT turn into a tribal discussion, there’s a weird situation where people defend poor writing and editing because they are pro-NYT. So I tend to avoid, or at least not participate because they are so pointless and boring.

Re: When did writing in major newspapers become so bad?

#139

Post by cuillevel3 »

kyle_martin1 wrote: post #62
offtop5 wrote: post #21

This is what happens when you spend decades demonizing journalism. Instead of giving us insightful articles, the New York times is competing against Facebook and Twitter to grab your attention immediately. I have a feeling most people don't read an entire New York times article, the entire point is just to create headlines you can share on Facebook or Twitter, keep those clicks and kpis flowing! In a way this is fant…

I agree. Centralized media equals a controlled narrative. Gone are the days of investigating prestige and bi-partisan reporting. Maybe it never really existing though... It's clear that the majority of reporters lean center to far left politically. When it comes to topics that will make their "side" look bad, there's usually a lack of intellectual curiosity for the truth. This happens on both sides, of course, but th…

Wikipedia says Project Veritas is a far right activists group, you could have honestly mentioned that.

Re: When did writing in major newspapers become so bad?

#140

Post by mumblemumble »

aerovistae wrote: post #35

> So I threw in the entire text into Hemingway, an app that identifies poor or confusing writing. I found this interesting, because it seemed unbelievable to me that an app could be able to tell good writing from bad writing in a reliable or useful way. So I took excerpts from Shirley Jackson's The Lottery and pasted them in. (For anyone unfamiliar with it, The Lottery is considered a masterpiece of a short story, an…

That Shirley Jackson example is particularly galling because her prose is considered by many people to be about as close to perfect as a human can get. Better than Hemingway's. IIRC, her editor said in an interview that she was their easiest client to work with, because her work didn't actually need editing.
Post reply on HN