81–90 of 110 posts
We stood up a failed local newspaper (yes, newsprint and everything). Local news, local color, but also local commentary on national issues. Who would have thought--human scale and decentralized still has an audience? vashonloop.com if you're curious
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I believe The Boston Globe have a strong history... Based on who's fact checking? The Boston Globe's? For all I know the Boston Globe might be the bees knees, but institutions of journalism should go. It isn't appropriate to put trust in "The Boston Globe". That isn't a real entity with opinions and it isn't an entity that we can vest trust in. Names should be named, individuals should be identified and their recor…
> "...That isn't a real entity..." > > "...These institutions are full of people..." I'm confused - are media outlets real entities or not? There is such a thing as company culture, and organisations in general can very much be said to have values, that are set and enforced by the people who work there. In any case what this whole subthread is apparently arguing for is that we should kick out a bunch of people, and r…
There is no competition at present. I didn’t wish this situation into being. It’s where I find the world in 2023.
With tv you couldn’t just choose to consume better content, but that’s the whole point of Twitter. No bozos. You can word filter “Trump” and get on with life.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. Now that everyone has a megaphone, there will be rockstar economists, mathematicians, computer scientists, and the like that distribute their message directly. I would much rather get info directly from a popular expert than from an English major who interviewed said expert. Even better - I get to decide which people I regard as experts, and not the journalist.
You don't have time to do that. People don't have time to listen enough different single-area experts all the time. They also don't have the ability to filter through the agendas of these people, which are pushed with no regard to information integrity. That filter is journalism, and it's still important for functioning democracies.
The first is a shift in add spend that favors content aggregators like Facebook and Google. There's simply little interest in long form low quality content, therefore it attracts less eyeballs and companies would rather spend their advertising budget elsewhere.
The second is unfair competition by state media. While independent companies like The Walrus have to attract readers, the state medias like CBC and the BBC can simply get a check from the government no matter who's watching.
A big factor in the decline of internet media companies that nobody talks about—every single dominant social platform (except this one) now aggressively penalizes external links in their algorithms. This should be illegal for any dominant platform IMO, external links are the lifeblood of a free and open internet. They are the only release valve from the walled gardens the inevitably result from human power-law cluste…
What do you mean no one talks about it? The media itself (and occasionally even the United States government) were taking about it a lot as they lamented the rise of Fake News and the election of Donald Trump. They asked for it, and suggested if they didn’t get it there might be heavy handed regulation. Facebook gave it to them. A sample. "What Facebook Did to American Democracy" — The Atlantic https://www.theatlanti…
They all have a vested interest in Facebook usage dropping.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. Now that everyone has a megaphone, there will be rockstar economists, mathematicians, computer scientists, and the like that distribute their message directly. I would much rather get info directly from a popular expert than from an English major who interviewed said expert. Even better - I get to decide which people I regard as experts, and not the journalist.
You don't have time to do that. People don't have time to listen enough different single-area experts all the time. They also don't have the ability to filter through the agendas of these people, which are pushed with no regard to information integrity. That filter is journalism, and it's still important for functioning democracies.
I feel like what you're saying is true in some platonic ideal, but it's very far from reality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "...That isn't a real entity..." > > "...These institutions are full of people..." I'm confused - are media outlets real entities or not? There is such a thing as company culture, and organisations in general can very much be said to have values, that are set and enforced by the people who work there. In any case what this whole subthread is apparently arguing for is that we should kick out a bunch of people, and r…
I use Twitter to follow the select few journalists, academics, government agencies, and writers that I trust and enjoy reading. There is no competition at present. I didn’t wish this situation into being. It’s where I find the world in 2023. With tv you couldn’t just choose to consume better content, but that’s the whole point of Twitter. No bozos. You can word filter “Trump” and get on with life.
I'm not talking about individual utility, I'm talking about societal effects.
The major problem I've observed is that the most important topic is politics - ie, what should we do next? The world of journalists is nearly the last place on earth people should be looking for political information. There are lies, few serious attempts at understanding the views of opponents, disinterest in the implications of the policies expounded and not even straightforward reporting of what people actually sai…
I ask because this sort of comment against an entire profession is generally a symptom of a level of separation that allows for the lack of nuance like "journalists are dishonest".
I am troubled by these views shared by so many on HN too. Journalism, especially the editorialised version, as a profession is extremely valuable. There are certainly problems it is facing with the advent of the internet but a replacement that consists of "individuals broadcasting their views" is going to be a worse deal because there will be no expectation for having an editor that sounds out their views. There is no check valve for individual ambition.
I would like to see a system that incentives factful reporting instead of sensationalism of course, but I have seen enough to believe that we can't do that with individuals for similar reasons we choose democracy over autocracy most of the time.
Some irony about the request at the bottom: > Fund the journalism we need now > We need you now more than ever. In turbulent times, it is crucial that reliable media remains available to everyone. That is why we depend on your support to keep our journalism accessible and independent. From economic uncertainty to political polarization, the challenges our society is facing today are too important for half-truths. > A…
"Most news will find its way into the public consciousness if it’s important without journalism." That seems wildly inaccurate. Rumors, misinformation and nonsense fly around faster and more freely than news. Citizen journalism has a place but they'd be nowhere without professional newsrooms with wide reach and deep resources.
The major problem I've observed is that the most important topic is politics - ie, what should we do next? The world of journalists is nearly the last place on earth people should be looking for political information. There are lies, few serious attempts at understanding the views of opponents, disinterest in the implications of the policies expounded and not even straightforward reporting of what people actually sai…
Exactly. Now that everyone has a megaphone, there will be rockstar economists, mathematicians, computer scientists, and the like that distribute their message directly. I would much rather get info directly from a popular expert than from an English major who interviewed said expert. Even better - I get to decide which people I regard as experts, and not the journalist.