3 ms·
There's something very meta about "serious" news organizations writing about how much trouble they're having, competing with "silly" organizations like buzzfeed
by privong 11y ago
There's something very meta about "serious" news organizations writing about how much trouble they're having, competing with "silly" organizations like buzzfeed. I guess this is a minor, backpage story (actually, not quite: [0]), and consists of a nearly-negligible fraction of the NYT's output and resources.
But I wonder what the purpose is of these articles? Is it an attempt to write news with themselves portrayed as simply another exterior subject to write about? Is it an attempt to shame readers into abandoning Buzzfeed with a "shouldn't you be spending your time reading about _real_ news?" piece?
[0] From the bottom of the article: "A version of this article appears in print on April 18, 2016, on page B1 of the New York edition with the headline: For News Outlets Feeling the Squeeze, It’s Bend or Bust."
- matt4077 11y agoThe purpose is... <drumroll> informing the readers? Why should the media be prohibited to write about the media and, more importantly, who should do it if they can't? And of course they'll be reporting from a certain perspective, which is probably going to assign a higher value to the Watergate leak than the ice bucket challenge. But it's unlikely to be a conspiracy - nicely exemplified bt the fact that the "real news" in this article would be Fox News. I doubt the NYT has a secrect pro-Murdoch agenda.