Live data from Hacker News

From watchdogs to mouthpieces: Washington Post and the wreckage of legacy media

thejournal.ie

21–30 of 79 posts

Re: From watchdogs to mouthpieces: Washington Post and the wreckage of legacy media

#21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wrong. Journalists have an obligation to favor the truth. If a party is not being honest or truthful, they should disfavor that party very strongly. That party is acting against the spirit of what journalism ought to be about, and is making itself a traitor to democracy, the people, and journalists. The WaPo lost significant double digit percent of subscribers because it spiked a Kamala endorsement. That was a clear…

Truth or not, newspapers fund themselves by flattering their readers' opinions. Paper 1, which prints only truthful and legally fact-checked stories about how X is fucking over Y and X is clearly evil, gets a lot of paid subscriptions from people who support Y. Meanwhile, paper 2 prints only truthful and legally fact-checked stories about how Y is fucking over X and Y is clearly evil, getting a lot of paid subscripti…

I guess the hope is that, in a healthy media ecosystem, anything important enough to have a constituency gets reported truthfully and legally fact-checked by somebody.

The public are still free to care which truthful things they care about (or want to pay attention to)—and part of the job of politics is still to try to direct attention toward aspects of truth that favor your political aims. But with sufficiently many truth-motivated reporting organs reflecting sufficiently many constituencies, the work of truth-finding gets done.

That, I think, is the loss.

Re: From watchdogs to mouthpieces: Washington Post and the wreckage of legacy media

#22
post #5

Who coined the phrase, "legacy media?" Sounds like techy-speak to make it sound old so people move to social media bullshit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_media

The last section heading about “Old media as a cultural construct and colloquialism” is pretty relevant to the parent post. Lots of theorists claim that the binary between new and old media is inaccurate.

Re: From watchdogs to mouthpieces: Washington Post and the wreckage of legacy media

#23
post #7

The problem isn't that news outlets favor the wrong side (as TFA seems to assert) but that they favor any side at all. Once they abandon the attempt to report the facts and start trying to shape public opinion, they're going to get caught in a tug-of-war and eventually torn to shreds.

Fox News seems to be going strong, so I don't think this holds - we see the rise of the right wing shady and sloppy news dominating the market because its cheap, fast, and appeals to the public's basal natures. No tug of war there, they do not care about integrity or reporting and thus make bank.

Re: From watchdogs to mouthpieces: Washington Post and the wreckage of legacy media

#24
post #20

Very few newspapers today have many reporters. This shows. Look at the front page of most newspapers, and ask, did this story start as an official announcement or press release? The answer is usually yes. There's not enough info coming in. The strongest effect of this is invisible - if nobody well-known is talking about it, it disappears from the mainstream news. Note how little is appearing about the war in Ukraine.…

[deleted]

Re: From watchdogs to mouthpieces: Washington Post and the wreckage of legacy media

#25
post #7

The problem isn't that news outlets favor the wrong side (as TFA seems to assert) but that they favor any side at all. Once they abandon the attempt to report the facts and start trying to shape public opinion, they're going to get caught in a tug-of-war and eventually torn to shreds.

It's very cable-news-brained to believe there always have to be two sides that are equally viable and that the only respectable unbiased stance is in the middle, dragged by the Overton window wherever it happens to go.

Re: From watchdogs to mouthpieces: Washington Post and the wreckage of legacy media

#27
post #12
post #7

The problem isn't that news outlets favor the wrong side (as TFA seems to assert) but that they favor any side at all. Once they abandon the attempt to report the facts and start trying to shape public opinion, they're going to get caught in a tug-of-war and eventually torn to shreds.

The newspaper industry has never been neutral. It has always been on the side of its owners. Whether that surfaced as warmongering, real estate hucksterism, flogging migration, reforming the entire nation to accommodate the car, or inventing white flight, newspapers always stood on the side of their owners' profits, not from the newspaper itself but from the owners' actual lines of business.

[deleted]

Re: From watchdogs to mouthpieces: Washington Post and the wreckage of legacy media

#28
The history of journalism is written by journalists, often in a self-serving way. You'll be hard-pressed to pinpoint the purported golden age of impartial truth-seeking. Early newspapers in the US were often owned by a local railroad tycoon and published hit pieces about his opponents. From the 1960s, this morphed into a way to broadcast the ideological consensus of East Coast Ivy League graduates. Some of their ideas were good and some were bad, but every single day, this consensus influenced which stories made it to the front page and how they were framed.

Weirdly, I think this model was beneficial even in the presence of bias: when everyone read the same news, it helped with social cohesion and national identity, even if the stories themselves presented a particular viewpoint.

But now, everyone can get their own news with their own custom-tailored bias, so there's no special reason to sign up for the biases of Washington Post or The New York Times unless you want to signal something to your ingroup. I don't think this is as much Bezos' fault as it's just a consequence of the internet evolving into what it is right now: one giant, gelatinous cube of engagement bait.

Re: From watchdogs to mouthpieces: Washington Post and the wreckage of legacy media

#29
In the words of Mon Montha from Andor:

> They don’t even bother to lie badly anymore! I suppose that’s the final humiliation.

While there were always problems with bias (esp. to the ownership) of outlets, it feels there were stronger social-mores or collective beliefs that still helped curb things.

Consider the difference between a biased judge that needs to appear unbiased--or considers it part of their self-identity--versus one who does not.

Re: From watchdogs to mouthpieces: Washington Post and the wreckage of legacy media

#30

Who coined the phrase, "legacy media?" Sounds like techy-speak to make it sound old so people move to social media bullshit.

Certainly in the UK the 'legacy' part of media orgs (print) is still far more profitable than the pennies paid for ad-clicks.
Post reply on HN