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

On the angst of American journalists (2019)

scholars-stage.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 73 posts

Re: On the angst of American journalists (2019)

#61

Post by Angostura »

idlehand wrote: post #47
refurb wrote: post #25

Outrage sells. The National Enquirer's entire business model has used this for the past 50+ years. The big difference is that the major news centers have copied that model and the author's thesis that it's a response to the move online makes sense. But there is something about online discourse that attracts extreme opinions like mice to cheese. This really dawned on me when I checked out the subreddit r/decaf for peo…

That's the kind of opinion you get in a break room at work when someone asks why you're not chugging your usual fifth cup by noon. For people to look up an online community specifically about something, they'd have to be a bit more interested in it than the average person. That's something I miss about the forums of old: the off topic sections were generally just regular users commenting on whatever thread was at the…

Not really - in the break room there will also be 5 other people saying 'Don't be daft - cafeine doesn't cause skull fractures - talk to a doctor'.

Re: On the angst of American journalists (2019)

#62

Post by chucksmash »

paulpauper wrote: post #37
woevdbz wrote: post #29

Journalism is this weird profession where its individual members have very little personal power and clout, because doing good research and writing is not a huge barrier to entry. Most are just freelance cogs in a big capitalistic machine that isn't doing very well by capitalist standards. But collectively they wield immense power to set the narrative that essentially drives democracy. I suspect this encourages pack…

because doing good research and writing is not a huge barrier to entry. it's a big barrier when one considers the vast majority of Americans, even those with degrees, cannot do either well.

If only 1 in 100 can do either well (enough) but with digital media reach you only need 1 in 10000 to fill such spots, that's still an oversupply of journalism job seekers who need some other way to differentiate themselves.

Separate rant, but journalistic writing feels so paint-by-numbers now and I think that reduces the barrier as far as writing talent required. I know journalists have always been taught to write articles with a certain shape, but it feels like we've moved beyond "inverted pyramid" to something more constrained. Every article must mention the effect of whatever is being reported upon the downtrodden, every article must end with a quote from an individual affected by the subject of the article that is twinged with irony or somehow fraught with meaning to make it personal.

It's as if all HN posts had to end with a coda that captured the essence of what the poster wanted to express in a dramatic way.

Pausing, chucksmash seemed reflective. "There's a dreary, pervasive sameness to the way we express ourselves now, and I suspect it's driven by engagement metrics" he said, slowly sipping his coffee before looking back to his phone with a sigh.

Re: On the angst of American journalists (2019)

#63

Post by feet »

herendin wrote: post #46
Animats wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Does this seem suspect to anyone else? Yes. Things are not fine. The trouble with journalism is that there's too much punditry and too little reporting. Newspapers used to have large staffs of "beat reporters", who went out, gathered news, and sent it in. Today, most "news" begins as a press release. Check cnn.com. Everything above the fold today started as a press release or statement from someone, or is an opinio…

>The trouble with journalism is that there's too much punditry and too little reporting. That seems more like a symptom than a disease. Punditry is cheap, good journalism is very expensive.

When the symptoms are focused around cost, maybe the disease is money and profit?

Re: On the angst of American journalists (2019)

#64

Post by barry-cotter »

krageon wrote: post #56
t-3 wrote: post #13

For a brief period, journalism was a respected professional-class career. Social media and streaming video killed that, so it's back to muckraking. I have confidence that eventually new economic models will emerge that allow writers to better meet the demand for "real" journalism, but figuring that out will take time and more societal adjustment to technology.

> For a brief period, journalism was a respected professional-class career. That must have been an extremely brief period significantly before I was alive, because I have never heard a single human being imply this.

Journalism schools exist. The supply of people stupid enough to get a graduate degree that costs tens of thousands of dollars that takes two years of your life who don’t expect to make a good salary is quite limited. Unless the graduates of J schools always expected to rely on the family money or their supportive spouse.

Re: On the angst of American journalists (2019)

#65

Post by woevdbz »

chroem- wrote: post #30
woevdbz wrote: post #29

Journalism is this weird profession where its individual members have very little personal power and clout, because doing good research and writing is not a huge barrier to entry. Most are just freelance cogs in a big capitalistic machine that isn't doing very well by capitalist standards. But collectively they wield immense power to set the narrative that essentially drives democracy. I suspect this encourages pack…

> they wield immense power to set the narrative that essentially drives democracy What you're describing has a name and it isn't democracy: it's oligarchy.

As evidenced in the 2016 US elections, their collective power is limited. It is not directly the power to control the military and police forces.

Re: On the angst of American journalists (2019)

#66

Post by woevdbz »

chucksmash wrote: post #62
paulpauper wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

because doing good research and writing is not a huge barrier to entry. it's a big barrier when one considers the vast majority of Americans, even those with degrees, cannot do either well.

If only 1 in 100 can do either well (enough) but with digital media reach you only need 1 in 10000 to fill such spots, that's still an oversupply of journalism job seekers who need some other way to differentiate themselves. Separate rant, but journalistic writing feels so paint-by-numbers now and I think that reduces the barrier as far as writing talent required. I know journalists have always been taught to write a…

> Every article must mention the effect of whatever is being reported upon the downtrodden

Not if you read foxnews.com or worse... There's still a format there, the themes are different. It's about celebrating good guys with guns, eyerolling at progressive people ("snowflakes") or policies, whining about what straight white folks have to deal with these days, etc.

I don't know if it's any worse now than it's been historically TBH.

Re: On the angst of American journalists (2019)

#67

Post by chaps »

krageon wrote: post #57
chaps wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? This is a stupendously bleak vision of journalism. Are you saying that there should be no new journalism because there's no benefit? If you're sourcing your news from national news, try looking for investigative journalism at the local level.

Either it's impacting your social web and you already know about it or it fundamentally doesn't matter. "News" being necessary is something people that benefit from it being necessary like to tell you, but it doesn't actually improve anything in anyone's life.

Heh, nah. I'm a journalist and I've seen its effects directly on local government. For example, there was a police accountability committee that needed the local city hall to create a process for allowing people to apply. They completely forgot about it, though. The act of me researching and calling political offices put a real fire under their assess to get the process moving again. Accountability works.

That has nothing to do with "social webs".

Re: On the angst of American journalists (2019)

#68

Post by TMWNN »

refurb wrote: post #25

Outrage sells. The National Enquirer's entire business model has used this for the past 50+ years. The big difference is that the major news centers have copied that model and the author's thesis that it's a response to the move online makes sense. But there is something about online discourse that attracts extreme opinions like mice to cheese. This really dawned on me when I checked out the subreddit r/decaf for peo…

>The National Enquirer's entire business model has used this for the past 50+ years.

Highly relevant: TIL that the National Enquirer was the most reliable news source during the O. J. Simpson murder trial. According to a Harvard law professor who gave the media an overall failing grade, the Enquirer was the only publication that thoroughly followed every rumor and talked to every witness. (https://np.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/6n1kz5/til_th...>)

Re: On the angst of American journalists (2019)

#69

Post by caslon »

refurb wrote: post #58
caslon wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of what you're saying implies things were good in 2019, though. It just implies things were getting better compared to the last two crashes we'd had, in theory, for some people. I think people have a right to feel angry, and I don't think the pandemic is the thing that caused it.

If things weren't good in 2019, then they've never been good . Seriously. In 20 years people will look back on the post-2008 economic frenzy like they look back on the Clinton years.

Have they ever been good? I come from a long lineage of people who had a parent die while they were still children. Sure doesn't seem like the good's been equitable or balanced.

Re: On the angst of American journalists (2019)

#70

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

chaps wrote: post #41
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the public suffering from a lack of journalism? I'm not sure I can identify any kind of journalistic output that's harder for the average person to find in 2019 (or 2022) than it was in 1980. I wouldn't deny that there are real problems in the new model of journalism, in particular the substantially increased incentives for bias, but I don't think a lack of journalism to read is one of them.

What? This is a stupendously bleak vision of journalism. Are you saying that there should be no new journalism because there's no benefit? If you're sourcing your news from national news, try looking for investigative journalism at the local level.

I'm saying that there's lots of new journalism. I would concede that the specific format of nonpartisan local newspapers is less popular than it used to be, but this has not in my experience made it any harder to determine what's going on in my local area, and I don't know of any evidence that others are finding it harder either.
Post reply on HN