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

Messenger Implosion Shows Journalism Lead by Visionless, Fail-Upward Brunchlords

techdirt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 81 posts

Re: Messenger Implosion Shows Journalism Lead by Visionless, Fail-Upward Brunchlords

#61

Post by mistermann »

jdminhbg wrote: post #53

> It’s a radical idea, but we could make meaningful progress if we clawed journalism from the hands of affluent, out of touch brunchlords, and put it back under the control of diverse, hungry journalists and editors who actually understand the news industry and media environment they work and exist in. No, probably not.

As a fellow cynic I am sympathetic, but I kind of both agree and disagree with this. I disagree in that meaningful progress is probably possible, but agree in that that meaningful progress is unlikely to be anything remotely near an optimal path.

If you are aiming at the wrong target, and don't know it, you are screwed.

Re: Messenger Implosion Shows Journalism Lead by Visionless, Fail-Upward Brunchlords

#62

Post by troyvit »

Love me some techdirt, but this is off base in a few ways. For one thing NYTimes and Politico are both profitable. Whether they're good is up to interpretation, but I don't think the likes of techdirt can say they're failing.

They mention 404 Media in there as somebody who's doing it right. They're about to put up an email wall for their content because AI and monopolies and social media and tracking users will save them.[1]

But one thing this article has for it that I haven't found in most other reading is an attempt at a solution. I mean at least it links to a discussion about it.[2] I'm only half-way through it, and so far it's a radical approach. Given the gutting of journalism I believe a radical change is what we need.

[1] https://www.404media.co/why-404-media-needs-your-email-addre...

[2] https://lpeproject.org/blog/taking-media-out-of-the-market/

Re: Messenger Implosion Shows Journalism Lead by Visionless, Fail-Upward Brunchlords

#63

Post by troyvit »

troyvit wrote: post #62

Love me some techdirt, but this is off base in a few ways. For one thing NYTimes and Politico are both profitable. Whether they're good is up to interpretation, but I don't think the likes of techdirt can say they're failing. They mention 404 Media in there as somebody who's doing it right. They're about to put up an email wall for their content because AI and monopolies and social media and tracking users will save…

I just want to add that folks like Cloudflare directly engage in the "non-reformist reform" that my second linked article talks about. Their Project Galileo[1] is a cool example of infrastructural support of journalism (and nonprofits) that can make all the difference.

[1] https://www.cloudflare.com/galileo/

Re: Messenger Implosion Shows Journalism Lead by Visionless, Fail-Upward Brunchlords

#64

Post by 65 »

BadHumans wrote: post #56
65 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Either form journalist orgs as non-profits (e.g NPR) or modernize journalism content (e.g Morning Brew). The traditional print news model is getting increasingly out of date and it's going to take a bunch of old geezers dying to modernize journalism. It's still "content", and news outlets need to keep up with changing consumer tastes.

What do you mean by modernize? Is being funded by ads modernizing in your eyes because that is how Morning Brew makes their money. If that's how you look at it then you'll be happy to know that many publications are very modern and write sponsored content filled with modern ads.

Morning Brew gets good sponsorships because of their modern content. Modern content is making video, appealing to a target demographic (Gen Z for them), and being active on social media. Many newspapers don't care enough about social media to realize if they make social media oriented content, they would get sponsorships on those platforms.

I used to work at a large regional newspaper, and they could not understand how social content works. They never made short form content, they refused to make a TikTok or post on Instagram reels or YouTube.

Newspapers have always been supplemented in some way by advertising, but the old people in charge seem to think you can throw some banner ads on your website and call it a day. Sponsorships are a lot different than banner ads.

Thus, you get a bunch of old people reading articles on websites, while the younger people are all on social media. Newspapers also don't understand you can use social content as a way to promote your full newspaper subscription.

The place I worked at was a bunch of people who worked there for 30 years doing the exact same thing as they did on day 1. No desire to appeal to younger people, no desire to compete on social media. Probably because of their arrogance in thinking video or social media is below them and not "real" journalism.

Re: Messenger Implosion Shows Journalism Lead by Visionless, Fail-Upward Brunchlords

#66

Post by next_xibalba »

Analemma_ wrote: post #27
next_xibalba wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The for profit model of journalism has been the dominant form for over 100 years. During the majority of that time it flourished. Only in the last 25 years has it collapsed. I’d say your view probably needs some updating.

But it collapsed for reasons that can't be reversed or maneuvered around. For all the talk about the more esoteric reasons for journalism's problems like partisan polarization or Big Tech— which aren't wrong but are mostly higher-order correction terms— the fundamental problem is much more simple: most journalism was paid for by things other than reader revenue. Classified ads, movie showtimes, and a whole bunch of o…

> At no point in history has journalism ever survived on subscription revenue alone

Aren't there quite a few journos that are thriving via substack, which is, to my knowledge, purely subscription based?

Re: Messenger Implosion Shows Journalism Lead by Visionless, Fail-Upward Brunchlords

#67

Post by Analemma_ »

next_xibalba wrote: post #66
Analemma_ wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it collapsed for reasons that can't be reversed or maneuvered around. For all the talk about the more esoteric reasons for journalism's problems like partisan polarization or Big Tech— which aren't wrong but are mostly higher-order correction terms— the fundamental problem is much more simple: most journalism was paid for by things other than reader revenue. Classified ads, movie showtimes, and a whole bunch of o…

> At no point in history has journalism ever survived on subscription revenue alone Aren't there quite a few journos that are thriving via substack, which is, to my knowledge, purely subscription based?

There are quite a few opinion columnists thriving on Substack. I think there are few, if any, journalists doing boots-on-the-ground reporting thriving there.

Re: Messenger Implosion Shows Journalism Lead by Visionless, Fail-Upward Brunchlords

#68

Post by SAI_Peregrinus »

thejohnconway wrote: post #44
BadHumans wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you suggest we pay journalist? They certainty shouldn't work for free.

Non-profit organisations. Large and small foundations and charities. This is not a solution, I don’t know how to get there, but I think it would get better results.

E.g. Pro Publica. It gets pretty good results, for its niche (investigative journalism, focused primarily on institutional corruption).

Re: Messenger Implosion Shows Journalism Lead by Visionless, Fail-Upward Brunchlords

#69

Post by ProllyInfamous »

CalRobert wrote: post #19
ProllyInfamous wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>sure with we just had universal healthcare. I dropped out of medical school over a decade ago, so my opinion is absolutely jaded. Talking with graduate physicians, the general concensus is "universal healthcare will never happen in the US." So my suggestion to unencumbered youngins is to study/travel abroad, and begin your expatriation quest... OR: become an attorney (joke: "in the US, for a cancer diagnosis, the be…

Even if it weren't universal, having it not be tied to your employer would be a start.

Without citation, I believe that 50%+ of US healthcare is already paid for by a government agency (whether veteran, indigency, etc).

...might as well unlink it to employers for the minority =/

Post reply on HN