3 ms·

I think the problem with sites like the guardian is that they still haven't adjusted to the inversion of power between writer and reader that the Internet broug

I think the problem with sites like the guardian is that they still haven't adjusted to the inversion of power between writer and reader that the Internet brought (the article hints at this but doesn't fully address it). When they still see the article (which is often rushed insignificant fluff) as primary, and comments as secondary, optional and in need of gardening by qualified moderators, they get the commenters they deserve. Contrasting this with moderation and comments on HN and well run subreddits is instructive. Those sites aren't perfect but at least they recognise the value of comments, and that some commenters will know more about the story than anyone, they might even be involved in it as witnesses or protagonists, as opposed to journalists who typically know very little about a subject. In addition your readers can be the best moderators if you empower them and keep steering them with a light hand. The guardian lets readers vote up only and then does nothing with it. Maybe it's time for a new kind of journalism without journalists or ads, with a focus on primary sources, and empowering interested communities to report and verify for other readers. It's unlikely to emerge from old media though.

lucozade 11y ago
I agree with you. My anecdotal opinion is that commentary works well where the article is intended to impart information. A lot of HN submissions are of this type because they're posted precisely because someone learnt something from them and often lead to extra information being imparted in the comments. It's true, to a lesser extent in Guardian articles that are simply reporting. Where it doesn't work well, on HN or news sites, is where the article is intended to influence debate. Whether it's a monad swinging contest on HN or an analysis of the lighter side of Jeremy Corbyn, comments rarely seem to reduce the polarity. I think this is more of an issue for news sites simply because there is less reporting and more influencing done, somewhat ironically.
- grey-area 11y ago
  Yes agreed, on opinion pieces, everyone has their own opinion, and wants to shout about it. I'm not even sure they are useful on a news site, but they drive traffic and due to the perverse incentives which drive places like the guardian (ads and clicks above all, the competition for traffic on google), they will start to dominate over didactic pieces which take more effort and drive less traffic. Our journalism is turning into Buzzfeed because of the quest for traffic at all costs.
mahranch 11y ago
> Maybe it's time for a new kind of journalism without journalists or ads, with a focus on primary sources, and empowering interested communities to report and verify for other readers. It's unlikely to emerge from old media though. I don't know, but it sounds a lot like you're describing reddit.
- grey-area 11y ago
  Well I think Reddit is heading in the right direction on certain subs and has the respect for readers/writers, but I was also thinking of something that takes the very real challenges in reporting something like a war and tackles them using technology, e.g. Providing verified sources on the ground, context in terms of long history, background on the key players, infographics on stats. Unfortunately Reddit is still a popularity contest, so in that sense it doesn't always surface the best content, just the most superficially popular. So more something that would be invaluable to a historian 100 years from now trying to write about a topic, or a person reading about a subject for the first time.

lucozade 11y ago

I agree with you. My anecdotal opinion is that commentary works well where the article is intended to impart information. A lot of HN submissions are of this type because they're posted precisely because someone learnt something from them and often lead to extra information being imparted in the comments. It's true, to a lesser extent in Guardian articles that are simply reporting. Where it doesn't work well, on HN or news sites, is where the article is intended to influence debate. Whether it's a monad swinging contest on HN or an analysis of the lighter side of Jeremy Corbyn, comments rarely seem to reduce the polarity. I think this is more of an issue for news sites simply because there is less reporting and more influencing done, somewhat ironically.

grey-area 11y ago
Yes agreed, on opinion pieces, everyone has their own opinion, and wants to shout about it. I'm not even sure they are useful on a news site, but they drive traffic and due to the perverse incentives which drive places like the guardian (ads and clicks above all, the competition for traffic on google), they will start to dominate over didactic pieces which take more effort and drive less traffic. Our journalism is turning into Buzzfeed because of the quest for traffic at all costs.

mahranch 11y ago

> Maybe it's time for a new kind of journalism without journalists or ads, with a focus on primary sources, and empowering interested communities to report and verify for other readers. It's unlikely to emerge from old media though. I don't know, but it sounds a lot like you're describing reddit.

grey-area 11y ago
Well I think Reddit is heading in the right direction on certain subs and has the respect for readers/writers, but I was also thinking of something that takes the very real challenges in reporting something like a war and tackles them using technology, e.g. Providing verified sources on the ground, context in terms of long history, background on the key players, infographics on stats. Unfortunately Reddit is still a popularity contest, so in that sense it doesn't always surface the best content, just the most superficially popular. So more something that would be invaluable to a historian 100 years from now trying to write about a topic, or a person reading about a subject for the first time.