4 ms·

running news was hard because it wasn't about breaking the latest crap in a knee jerk. Good newspaper differentiate by having a great analysis of yesterday news

by gcb0 11y ago

running news was hard because it wasn't about breaking the latest crap in a knee jerk. Good newspaper differentiate by having a great analysis of yesterday news. with great writing and knowledge. tv had already brought most of the instant-and-dumb news. but there was at least a bit of source checking and a crude analysis on the late night news. now, it's 100% knee jerk breaking news. in less than 140 chars. if you call this the future, good luck. then the article just drones on a dumb list of "20 ways every office worker that has a blog already tried to monetize it". nothing new or noteworthy.

ttctciyf 11y ago
Back in 2008, British journalist Nick Davies was making noises[1] about how marketplace dynamics impact news standards: I commissioned research from specialists at Cardiff University, who surveyed more than 2,000 UK news stories from the four quality dailies (Times, Telegraph, Guardian, Independent) and the Daily Mail. They found two striking things. First, when they tried to trace the origins of their “facts”, they discovered that only 12% of the stories were wholly composed of material researched by reporters. With 8% of the stories, they just couldn’t be sure. The remaining 80%, they found, were wholly, mainly or partially constructed from second-hand material, provided by news agencies and by the public relations industry. Second, when they looked for evidence that these “facts” had been thoroughly checked, they found this was happening in only 12% of the stories. 12% of stories had been fact-checked - I wonder how that number will fare in the coming "big opportunity for the news industry [...] to increase its market size 100x AND drop prices 10X"? 1: http://www.nickdavies.net/2008/02/05/introducing-flat-earth-news/ http://www.nickdavies.net/2008/02/05/introducing-flat-earth-...

by gcb0 11y ago

ttctciyf 11y ago

Back in 2008, British journalist Nick Davies was making noises[1] about how marketplace dynamics impact news standards: I commissioned research from specialists at Cardiff University, who surveyed more than 2,000 UK news stories from the four quality dailies (Times, Telegraph, Guardian, Independent) and the Daily Mail. They found two striking things. First, when they tried to trace the origins of their “facts”, they discovered that only 12% of the stories were wholly composed of material researched by reporters. With 8% of the stories, they just couldn’t be sure. The remaining 80%, they found, were wholly, mainly or partially constructed from second-hand material, provided by news agencies and by the public relations industry. Second, when they looked for evidence that these “facts” had been thoroughly checked, they found this was happening in only 12% of the stories. 12% of stories had been fact-checked - I wonder how that number will fare in the coming "big opportunity for the news industry [...] to increase its market size 100x AND drop prices 10X"? 1: http://www.nickdavies.net/2008/02/05/introducing-flat-earth-news/ http://www.nickdavies.net/2008/02/05/introducing-flat-earth-...