5 ms·

This is an odd editorial. The author stretches to explain how Zuck's Manifesto released this week could destroy journalism. But then she provides evidence that

This is an odd editorial. The author stretches to explain how Zuck's Manifesto released this week could destroy journalism. But then she provides evidence that journalism is for all intents and purposes already dead. She cites a (possibly inflated) prime time news audience size of ~3 million people, and 1.5 million digital subscribers for the NYT...So less than 1% of America are using these previously major sources of news. How did that happen guys? I'm the last person you will find defending Zuck or Facebook (which I do not use and have deleted other apps as facebook buys them). But this Atlantic article felt like a desperate plea for charity of some sort, and preferably cash since the Chan-Zuckerberg Empire has so much. This is yet another editorial complaining about themselves but the author does not offer an alternative idea for journalism to avoid its own demise. Why and how would she? Journalists don't seem to understand business at all and are scared to try. In just 3 months since the election, journalists and many people in this country seem to have forgotten how biased, incompetent, clueless, fake and corrupt even the "real" news organizations are today. There was no mea culpa in the article for these issues, just a misguided complaint. The pre-internet old days were not so perfect either if anyone reads history...can anyone explain why newspapers, these supposed bastions of objectivity for communities, even endorse political candidates? Is that a newspapers job? This whole situation reminds me of another time there was a Harvard guy's looong manifesto that no one had the patience to read in full and it was on a very similar topic...the news industry was running around like a chicken with its head cut off back then too [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski#Industrial_Society_and_Its_Future https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski#Industrial_Socie...

kraftomatic 10y ago
I agree: journalism has let it's industry fall in to disrepute . It's no surprise that people are so easily convinced to move to new models of information delivery when you look at the current state of news organisations.
cylinder 10y ago
I'm surprised the left has become so sympathetic to the corporate media all of a sudden. These people colluded to stop a once in a lifetime opportunity in Bernie Sanders to help their friend and collaborator Hillary Clinton, and so we ended up with Donald Trump. This was only a year ago.
- ForrestN 10y ago
  What is your evidence that they colluded? I agree that the media in general (at all levels, not just the corporate media) disastrously failed us during the election. But I don't think anyone has proven that they "colluded to stop a once in a lifetime opportunity," right?
  - vowelless 10y ago
    I'm not sure if I can link to wikileaks here but some of the emails showed collusion with the DNC in general and with the Clinton campaign in particular during the primaries. For an example, see the emails about the debate question leaked to the Clinton campaign for the primary debate in Flint, MI (although this was by someone, I think, hired by CNN who was later hired to head the DNC). https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/07/donna-brazile-is-totally-not-sorry-for-leaking-cnn-debate-questions-to-hillary-clinton/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/07/do...
    - ForrestN 10y ago
      Those very narrow allegations about one incident within the DNC are not the same as the entire corporate media colluding in Clinton's favor. I'm not happy about what the DNC did but it's not clear that swayed the outcome from an inevitable Bernie victory or that the DNC was part of a conspiracy with the media.
      - wavefunction 10y ago
        The emails also showed that both the Hillary Clinton campaign and DNC reached out to highly-placed journalists (Ezra Klein, some others) to prop up Trump, Carson and Cruz as GOP candidates because there was a consensus that they would be "pushovers." Donald Trump received an exorbitant amount of media coverage for free throughout the campaign cycle.
        ForrestN 10y ago
JumpCrisscross 10y ago
"32% [of Americans] say they have 'a great deal' or 'a fair amount' of trust" in the mass media; that number drops to 14% among Republicans, "down from 32% last year." http://www.gallup.com/poll/195542/americans-trust-mass-media-sinks-new-low.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/195542/americans-trust-mass-media...

kraftomatic 10y ago

I agree: journalism has let it's industry fall in to disrepute . It's no surprise that people are so easily convinced to move to new models of information delivery when you look at the current state of news organisations.

cylinder 10y ago

I'm surprised the left has become so sympathetic to the corporate media all of a sudden. These people colluded to stop a once in a lifetime opportunity in Bernie Sanders to help their friend and collaborator Hillary Clinton, and so we ended up with Donald Trump. This was only a year ago.

ForrestN 10y ago
What is your evidence that they colluded? I agree that the media in general (at all levels, not just the corporate media) disastrously failed us during the election. But I don't think anyone has proven that they "colluded to stop a once in a lifetime opportunity," right?
- vowelless 10y ago
  I'm not sure if I can link to wikileaks here but some of the emails showed collusion with the DNC in general and with the Clinton campaign in particular during the primaries. For an example, see the emails about the debate question leaked to the Clinton campaign for the primary debate in Flint, MI (although this was by someone, I think, hired by CNN who was later hired to head the DNC). https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/07/donna-brazile-is-totally-not-sorry-for-leaking-cnn-debate-questions-to-hillary-clinton/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/07/do...
  - ForrestN 10y ago
    Those very narrow allegations about one incident within the DNC are not the same as the entire corporate media colluding in Clinton's favor. I'm not happy about what the DNC did but it's not clear that swayed the outcome from an inevitable Bernie victory or that the DNC was part of a conspiracy with the media.
    - wavefunction 10y ago
      The emails also showed that both the Hillary Clinton campaign and DNC reached out to highly-placed journalists (Ezra Klein, some others) to prop up Trump, Carson and Cruz as GOP candidates because there was a consensus that they would be "pushovers." Donald Trump received an exorbitant amount of media coverage for free throughout the campaign cycle.
      - ForrestN 10y ago

JumpCrisscross 10y ago

"32% [of Americans] say they have 'a great deal' or 'a fair amount' of trust" in the mass media; that number drops to 14% among Republicans, "down from 32% last year." http://www.gallup.com/poll/195542/americans-trust-mass-media-sinks-new-low.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/195542/americans-trust-mass-media...