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

Why the mainstream media is dying

fakesteve.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 41 posts

Re: Why the mainstream media is dying

#21

Post by nl »

mattlanger wrote: post #10

I'm all for expecting due diligence from traditional media, but saying they're dying because Michael Arrington provided more exhaustive details for his very particular and specialized audience while the Times ran a puff piece for a much more generalized audience seems a little petty on Fake Steve's part. Seriously. This is the same newspaper that helped legitimize a war by running Judith Miller bylines above the fold…

You're missing the point of what Fake Steve is saying. Puff pieces don't work as often anymore because they rely on people not having good access to better (non-puff) reporting.

If someone cares enough about something to read a puff-piece then they probably are going to care enough to read properly informative stories.

Increasingly, in all field (from celebrity gossip to finance to politics) you can get expert reporting from people who write well and know what they are talking about - and they provide real insights, not puff.

Forest. Trees.

Re: Why the mainstream media is dying

#22

Post by natrius »

indranil wrote: post #7
greyman wrote: post #2

Mainstream media is not dying. The article proved that in one case, Techcrunch reported substantially better than New York Times. But it should be mentioned, that 1) this is not always the case, and 2) Technology is only a small part of what mainstream media cover. Also, in my opinion, Techcrunch is not a blog in the traditional sense of that word. Yes, it uses blogging software and sorts its articles chronologically…

Actually TechCrunch is very much a blog, and not a "mainstream" media company, because it's not on print or tv or something people traditionally call the "mainstream", a definition that's changing rapidly.

TechCrunch is mainstream tech journalism. Try to think of someone relatively informed about the industry who doesn't read it.

Re: Why the mainstream media is dying

#23

Post by ig1 »

nir wrote: post #13
jakarta wrote: post #11

The problem to me is that most media outlets are still populated with J-school grads when they should be housed with experts. That's why blogs are winning, because you can go straight to these people with laser focused insights that you just can't get from a j-school grad. In the past, journalists would have to go to experts for comments and structure stories around that, now with blogs you get to cut out the middle…

Does anything in Arrington's background make him better suited to cover technology than a journalism graduate? Eventually, each of them has the chance to make himself into an expert in his field. The journalism grad might also remember some stuff from her studies such as not to invest in companies operating in the field she covers, verify with several sources, try to get responses before publishing and so on. I'd say…

From WP:

Arrington grew up in California, USA and Surrey, England and graduated from Claremont McKenna College with a major in economics. He went on to Stanford Law School and graduated in 1995.[6] He practiced corporate and securities law at O’Melveny & Myers, and Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati.[7] Arrington was co-founder of Achex, an internet payments company, which was sold to First Data Corp for US$32 million and is now the back end of Western Union online. His other entrepreneurial endeavors include co-founding Zip.ca and Pool.com, acting as chief operating officer for Razorgator, and founding Edgeio.

Re: Why the mainstream media is dying

#24

Post by whatusername »

natrius wrote: post #22
indranil wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually TechCrunch is very much a blog, and not a "mainstream" media company, because it's not on print or tv or something people traditionally call the "mainstream", a definition that's changing rapidly.

TechCrunch is mainstream tech journalism. Try to think of someone relatively informed about the industry who doesn't read it.

Startups != Tech for most of the world.

Re: Why the mainstream media is dying

#25

Post by InclinedPlane »

nir wrote: post #13
jakarta wrote: post #11

The problem to me is that most media outlets are still populated with J-school grads when they should be housed with experts. That's why blogs are winning, because you can go straight to these people with laser focused insights that you just can't get from a j-school grad. In the past, journalists would have to go to experts for comments and structure stories around that, now with blogs you get to cut out the middle…

Does anything in Arrington's background make him better suited to cover technology than a journalism graduate? Eventually, each of them has the chance to make himself into an expert in his field. The journalism grad might also remember some stuff from her studies such as not to invest in companies operating in the field she covers, verify with several sources, try to get responses before publishing and so on. I'd say…

"Does anything in Arrington's background make him better suited to cover technology than a journalism graduate?"

Demonstrably yes. The entire J-school educated mainstream media has had the opportunity to do the story that Arrington has done, and yet they have failed. He has done the work that they have not, and done it well. By those credentials, among his other work, he has proven his suitability to cover technology.

Blogs are not yet a replacement for all of mainstream media, but that is to be expected. Blogs are young, and profitable blogs younger yet (5-10 years at best), whereas the mainstream media is still a multibillion dollar centuries old institution. The fact that blogs are any competition whatsoever to the mainstream media is a shocking condemnation of the current state of mainstream journalism.

Re: Why the mainstream media is dying

#26

Post by misuba »

greyman wrote: post #2

Mainstream media is not dying. The article proved that in one case, Techcrunch reported substantially better than New York Times. But it should be mentioned, that 1) this is not always the case, and 2) Technology is only a small part of what mainstream media cover. Also, in my opinion, Techcrunch is not a blog in the traditional sense of that word. Yes, it uses blogging software and sorts its articles chronologically…

Mainstream media is certainly not dying - the real killer of newspapers is and has always been TV. People seem absurdly blind to this now that the internet is dealing that last 2 HP of damage.

Re: Why the mainstream media is dying

#27

Post by mattmaroon »

ig1 wrote: post #23
nir wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does anything in Arrington's background make him better suited to cover technology than a journalism graduate? Eventually, each of them has the chance to make himself into an expert in his field. The journalism grad might also remember some stuff from her studies such as not to invest in companies operating in the field she covers, verify with several sources, try to get responses before publishing and so on. I'd say…

From WP: Arrington grew up in California, USA and Surrey, England and graduated from Claremont McKenna College with a major in economics. He went on to Stanford Law School and graduated in 1995.[6] He practiced corporate and securities law at O’Melveny & Myers, and Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati.[7] Arrington was co-founder of Achex, an internet payments company, which was sold to First Data Corp for US$32 million…

I would find it hard to rant about scams if I owned part of Pool.com. I suppose that's because my aversion to being a hypocrite outweighs my desire to sell ads on my blog.

Re: Why the mainstream media is dying

#28

Post by patio11 »

InclinedPlane wrote: post #25
nir wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does anything in Arrington's background make him better suited to cover technology than a journalism graduate? Eventually, each of them has the chance to make himself into an expert in his field. The journalism grad might also remember some stuff from her studies such as not to invest in companies operating in the field she covers, verify with several sources, try to get responses before publishing and so on. I'd say…

"Does anything in Arrington's background make him better suited to cover technology than a journalism graduate?" Demonstrably yes. The entire J-school educated mainstream media has had the opportunity to do the story that Arrington has done, and yet they have failed. He has done the work that they have not, and done it well. By those credentials, among his other work, he has proven his suitability to cover technology…

The entire J-school educated mainstream media has had the opportunity to do the story that Arrington has done, and yet they have failed.

I think this bears repeating. "A hot new fad sweeping the nation is deceiving your children and scamming customers for well in excess of $100 million per year" doesn't sound out of the purview of the NYT, does it? Instead of doing the ground pounding to shake out a story like that, they mainly get a press release from someone, open the Rolodex and find one of the usual suspects to give a punchy opposing quote for balance, and then publish it.

Re: Why the mainstream media is dying

#29

Post by jcromartie »

It boils down to this: no more hard news.

Mainstream media simply repeats talking points and soundbites. I was reminded of the stark difference between mainstream media and "real news" when I heard an anchor on NPR actually correcting some Republican legislator's ramblings about socialized medicine. I was shocked. It was as if I had just heard a kid talk back to his parents or something. Then, of course, I realized that this is how journalists are supposed to behave. CNN and MSNBC just "leave it there" after some blowhard spouts off a slew of factual errors.

Re: Why the mainstream media is dying

#30

Post by netcan »

nir wrote: post #13
jakarta wrote: post #11

The problem to me is that most media outlets are still populated with J-school grads when they should be housed with experts. That's why blogs are winning, because you can go straight to these people with laser focused insights that you just can't get from a j-school grad. In the past, journalists would have to go to experts for comments and structure stories around that, now with blogs you get to cut out the middle…

Does anything in Arrington's background make him better suited to cover technology than a journalism graduate? Eventually, each of them has the chance to make himself into an expert in his field. The journalism grad might also remember some stuff from her studies such as not to invest in companies operating in the field she covers, verify with several sources, try to get responses before publishing and so on. I'd say…

The promise is/was not 'reporting by those who know most'. The promise is lower barriers, democratisation & meritocracy. Scobles & Arringtons compete against Cunninghams and Torvalds on equal footing.

If success is derived from or defined as 'most readers' (not obvious in the context of blogs), then it is mostly a consequence of who people want to read. But you don't need to be concerned with blogger success. You can read whoever wants to write.

That is the promise of blogs. Anything about what the content of blogs would be was always speculation. The promise is that anything can be thrown at the wall by anyone.

Some experts got thrown against the wall too.

Post reply on HN