3 ms·

It's obvious to me that in the search for more clicks, driven by social media, the lines between those professions you pointed out have gotten blurred. I think

It's obvious to me that in the search for more clicks, driven by social media, the lines between those professions you pointed out have gotten blurred. I think the masthead is a good touch point because it shows that few organically go to nyt.com (or wsj, or whatever) and then choose articles to read anymore...they just wind up on the article site from links through social media. The masthead is much different than a lobby. It used to be method to signal what was important to know about what's going on in the world right now. Now we get those signals through the algorithms on Facebook. That's a problem. Shut down might be harsh, but at a minimum they need to drop the pretense of objectivity. You don't think the quest for clicks has come from the social media side of the house, and that that has influenced both the content and headlines that journalists write? People respond to incentives, and if the flashy and click-baity article is getting pushed journalists will respond with more flashy and click-baity articles.

smsm42 10y ago
> Now we get those signals through the algorithms on Facebook. That's a problem. You are assuming that the person doing NYT frontpage must do a better job, at least in regard to giving me an accurate, complete and informative picture of the world. But what if it's not true? What if that person has an agenda to sway my opinion and bring me to a conclusion that person needs? What if that person's goal is not to inform me but to make me vote for certain candidate or support certain law or hate certain person? Why would I then trust that person and use the frontpage as my gateway to the world? The signal is only good if it's signaling what I want. But I don't think it's the case nowadays. > a minimum they need to drop the pretense of objectivity. They are pretty much already done with it. At least nobody believes such claims anymore. > You don't think the quest for clicks has come from the social media side of the house It's certainly not from social media - everybody loves clicks. The thing is, the rise of sites like Snopes or Politifact showed there are clicks in trying to be unbiased and informative too. Maybe a bit less clicks, but there definitely are some. Yet, those clicks do not seem to be all that attractive. I think it has to do much more with journalistic mindset shifting from duty to inform and disseminate the truth, to some kind of paternalistic mindset of making people form the "right" opinions, where truth that may "mislead" people into a "wrong" opinion is ok to hide, and a falsity that helps the "right" cause is ok to promote. I think it's much more an ideological motive than pecuniary one.
- remarkEon 10y ago
  I can't really disagree with anything you wrote here, though I'd say that with Snopes and Politifact the clicks are in people thinking you're trying to be unbiased. >I think it has to do much more with journalistic mindset shifting from duty to inform and disseminate the truth, to some kind of paternalistic mindset of making people form the "right" opinions... Yeah that's what I'm getting at by criticizing the "explainers". That's exactly what they do...try to get you to have the right opinions. I'm probably giving people too much credit by only referencing the incentive structures, and ignoring or not acknowledging that they are also ideological motives at play.

smsm42 10y ago

> Now we get those signals through the algorithms on Facebook. That's a problem. You are assuming that the person doing NYT frontpage must do a better job, at least in regard to giving me an accurate, complete and informative picture of the world. But what if it's not true? What if that person has an agenda to sway my opinion and bring me to a conclusion that person needs? What if that person's goal is not to inform me but to make me vote for certain candidate or support certain law or hate certain person? Why would I then trust that person and use the frontpage as my gateway to the world? The signal is only good if it's signaling what I want. But I don't think it's the case nowadays. > a minimum they need to drop the pretense of objectivity. They are pretty much already done with it. At least nobody believes such claims anymore. > You don't think the quest for clicks has come from the social media side of the house It's certainly not from social media - everybody loves clicks. The thing is, the rise of sites like Snopes or Politifact showed there are clicks in trying to be unbiased and informative too. Maybe a bit less clicks, but there definitely are some. Yet, those clicks do not seem to be all that attractive. I think it has to do much more with journalistic mindset shifting from duty to inform and disseminate the truth, to some kind of paternalistic mindset of making people form the "right" opinions, where truth that may "mislead" people into a "wrong" opinion is ok to hide, and a falsity that helps the "right" cause is ok to promote. I think it's much more an ideological motive than pecuniary one.

remarkEon 10y ago
I can't really disagree with anything you wrote here, though I'd say that with Snopes and Politifact the clicks are in people thinking you're trying to be unbiased. >I think it has to do much more with journalistic mindset shifting from duty to inform and disseminate the truth, to some kind of paternalistic mindset of making people form the "right" opinions... Yeah that's what I'm getting at by criticizing the "explainers". That's exactly what they do...try to get you to have the right opinions. I'm probably giving people too much credit by only referencing the incentive structures, and ignoring or not acknowledging that they are also ideological motives at play.