3 ms·

Great point about addressing readership and gaining trust. Also, I should add I really liked Thomas's article. It doesn't address some of the points I mentione

Great point about addressing readership and gaining trust. Also, I should add I really liked Thomas's article. It doesn't address some of the points I mentioned, but it's clearly a thoughtful article that backs up its investigation with evidence. And I am too hard on Vox and 538. I have every reason to believe they're trying to get it right - while balancing the needs of their business - and I'm glad they have entered the media landscape. I hope more players that approach journalism from different investigative and analytical angles will follow. Both orgs could improve, and anyway defaulting to mastheads to assess quality is only a heuristic.

albedoa 10y ago
> And I am too hard on Vox and 538. I have every reason to believe they're trying to get it right - while balancing the needs of their business Now you might be going too easy on them ;) It's hard to say Vox is making an effort when crap like this has become a regular occurrence: http://fair.org/home/voxs-puff-piece-on-goldman-sachs-doesnt-reveal-goldman-sponsors-vox/ http://fair.org/home/voxs-puff-piece-on-goldman-sachs-doesnt... If this is necessary for "balancing the needs of their business", can they really offer a net benefit to us? Maybe to the severely uninformed — admittedly a huge crowd — but only those who are willing to become informed, and only temporarily while they learn how to inform themselves. Great OP btw.
- AlldenKope 10y ago
  Thanks for bringing the Fair.org/GS/Vox article up. The Vox article is clearly an advertisement. I'd even say it's hard for educated people to see this stuff clearly. Not because they are intellectually incapable of distinguishing between reporting and marketing, but simply because it takes effort to make that call. You're cruising through your day, dipping into articles that grab your attention - there's just no way you're constantly critically vigilant - I know I can't be. And to some extent we're powerless: even if we just read the headline in some feed, well, we're already now aware of a new GS financial product, and we might be curious about it. And some of the marketing is borderline sinister: the "for the masses" phrase in the headline is ridiculous counterspin for GS.

albedoa 10y ago

> And I am too hard on Vox and 538. I have every reason to believe they're trying to get it right - while balancing the needs of their business Now you might be going too easy on them ;) It's hard to say Vox is making an effort when crap like this has become a regular occurrence: http://fair.org/home/voxs-puff-piece-on-goldman-sachs-doesnt-reveal-goldman-sponsors-vox/ http://fair.org/home/voxs-puff-piece-on-goldman-sachs-doesnt... If this is necessary for "balancing the needs of their business", can they really offer a net benefit to us? Maybe to the severely uninformed — admittedly a huge crowd — but only those who are willing to become informed, and only temporarily while they learn how to inform themselves. Great OP btw.

AlldenKope 10y ago
Thanks for bringing the Fair.org/GS/Vox article up. The Vox article is clearly an advertisement. I'd even say it's hard for educated people to see this stuff clearly. Not because they are intellectually incapable of distinguishing between reporting and marketing, but simply because it takes effort to make that call. You're cruising through your day, dipping into articles that grab your attention - there's just no way you're constantly critically vigilant - I know I can't be. And to some extent we're powerless: even if we just read the headline in some feed, well, we're already now aware of a new GS financial product, and we might be curious about it. And some of the marketing is borderline sinister: the "for the masses" phrase in the headline is ridiculous counterspin for GS.