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

31–40 of 41 posts

Re: Why the mainstream media is dying

#31

Post by jonny_noog »

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…

It seems to me that the emphasis from Fake Steve is really more like NYT Just because it's fashionable to tear down Arrington and TC, doesn't mean that mainstream media should get a pass in the process.

I think Fake Steve is completely right here. And what he's really talking about has little to do with Arrington and TC.

Re: Why the mainstream media is dying

#32

Post by nir »

patio11 wrote: post #28
InclinedPlane wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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,…

I think you're both reading way too much into the fact TechCrunch did a better job on this story than NYT. It's not unusual that some reporter will find or dig deep enough into a story that others hadn't. It doesn't prove that much.

The Drudge Report broke the Monica Lewinsky story, which nearly cost a US President his job - does this mean The Drudge Report is a better news source than the NY Times?

Re: Why the mainstream media is dying

#33

Post by njharman »

unalone wrote: post #4
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…

The New York Times is a century and a half old. Techcrunch hasn't even passed half a decade. Blogging's ten years old. Give it another ten and where do you think it'll be? Blogs already cover politics and technology more thoroughly than papers. I'll bet webcomics are catching up to newspaper funnies in popularity. By 2019, there won't be anything in newspapers that you can't get better online. How is TechCrunch not a…

> Give it another ten and where do you think it'll be?

With pet.com?

Re: Why the mainstream media is dying

#34

Post by patio11 »

nir wrote: post #32
patio11 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

I think you're both reading way too much into the fact TechCrunch did a better job on this story than NYT. It's not unusual that some reporter will find or dig deep enough into a story that others hadn't. It doesn't prove that much. The Drudge Report broke the Monica Lewinsky story, which nearly cost a US President his job - does this mean The Drudge Report is a better news source than the NY Times?

I would like to take the No Politics rule in response to that question, because my answer would tend to incriminate me.

Re: Why the mainstream media is dying

#35

Post by ivenkys »

"which makes online games, like FarmVille, that have become incredibly popular on Facebook among people who are missing parts of their brains."

As an aside no mainstream media would actually use those words , though they be true.

Re: Why the mainstream media is dying

#36

Post by rms »

ivenkys wrote: post #35

"which makes online games, like FarmVille, that have become incredibly popular on Facebook among people who are missing parts of their brains." As an aside no mainstream media would actually use those words , though they be true.

Those words aren't true. These games exploit a psychological quirk that most humans have.

Re: Why the mainstream media is dying

#37

Post by InclinedPlane »

nir wrote: post #32
patio11 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

I think you're both reading way too much into the fact TechCrunch did a better job on this story than NYT. It's not unusual that some reporter will find or dig deep enough into a story that others hadn't. It doesn't prove that much. The Drudge Report broke the Monica Lewinsky story, which nearly cost a US President his job - does this mean The Drudge Report is a better news source than the NY Times?

The point of the article is that this is a specific example of a larger trend. Have you ever noticed that when the mainstream media covers some science or technology field you happen to have expertise in the coverage is always incredibly shallow and contains several glaring errors? You perhaps labor under the assumption that all of the rest of the media's coverage of subjects you have less independent knowledge of is unbiased, accurate, and thorough. What evidence do you have to support that assumption?

In truth there is very little reporting in the mainstream media these days. Most media conglomerates rest on the advantages of access and consumer inertia. The big papers would rather "report" on their content-free, uncritical exclusive interview with a major figure than actually do the grubby, uninteresting behind the scenes grunt work to break legitimate news.

Re: Why the mainstream media is dying

#39

Post by mattlanger »

nl wrote: post #21
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 report…

I don't see these two roles being mutually exclusive, nor do I see your statement to be a given ("if someone cares enough...").

The experience of sitting down with a Sunday paper is very different from that of reading a specialized outlet with a specifically targeted audience. The Sunday paper is a curated aggregator. Nine in ten stories (and probably much more than that) relate to subjects I don't have very specific knowledge of, and I'd be lost if I tried to keep up with reporting that expected significant topical familiarity.

Re: Why the mainstream media is dying

#40

Post by epe »

mattmaroon wrote: post #27
ig1 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Can you elaborate? Pool.com appears to some sort of domain name broker at the moment. While it may not be the most reputable business ever, it seems like it's a cut or two above scamming people into subscribing to some $10/month horoscope service under false pretenses.
Post reply on HN