4 ms·

> hyperbolic reporting that disregards nuance to attract clicks from the lowest common denominator is much more widespread and insidiously damaging. I'd argue t

> hyperbolic reporting that disregards nuance to attract clicks from the lowest common denominator is much more widespread and insidiously damaging. I'd argue that it plays a large role in the polarization of society. So, which is better? That? Or accurate, nuanced reporting that the everyman does not even attempt to read because his eyes glaze over before he's done parsing the first sentence? The problem is not with the news, the problem is that this is what human nature is. The vast majority of people are amazingly bad at absorbing information regarding things beyond their immediate interests and horizon.

michaelmrose 9y ago
By the time the everyman finishes reading the malarkey he doesn't know anything useful and now believes he has a handle on a complex and multifaceted issue. Ergo he actually knows less than when he started.
Clubber 9y ago
You assume that everyman doesn't attempt to read it. Everyman read it for years. The news dumbed everything down when they chased the tabloid dollars.
- washadjeffmad 9y ago
  Again. Remember an early symbol countering the yellow journals was the Old Gray Lady. And thorough, well researched, objective journalism has atrophied or gone underground in the wake of the digital readership monetization crisis. And AFK, how many reporters are there now versus news readers? When you can buy your rhetoric and blurbs right from the think tanks in partnership with SocialCo(TM) and have anyone who looks the part read off the script, it makes sense not to spend the money on originality and depth. It takes some mental acrobatics not to want to call that an ersatz representation or a fools interpretation of what journalism is.
  - Florin_Andrei 9y ago
    Things are not completely bad, however. I tend to not go on Facebook too often. But when I do, there are two categories of news (or news and news-like, I should say) items on my feed: - posts by Nautilus Magazine, Aeon Magazine, along with articles from more specialized journals like Sky & Telescope, etc - reposts by Facebook friends from fringe blogs The contrast is so huge, it's hilarious. I read one category for actual information; the other could be entertainment, except it tends to push me towards cynicism, so I end up just ignoring it. Maybe I should restructure my Google News feed and just use that instead.
  - Clubber 9y ago
    The NYT just seems so one sided since Trump (and probably before). I mean there are two sides to DACA and both have merit. There was an article the other day that tried to explain away whites being killed by cops as suicide by cop. That's not good reporting, that borders on propaganda. I mean I know opinion pages are garbage, but damn. EDIT: Suicide by cop article was Wapo, not NYT. I need to stop reading Wapo. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/07/11/arent-more-white-people-than-black-people-killed-by-police-yes-but-no/?utm_term=.ee9ffa098d0a https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/07/1... I don't even mind that much that they pick a side if they do it at the end, I just want them to present both arguments, and their merits so I can decide. When the best out there does what the NYT is doing now, we're in trouble.

michaelmrose 9y ago

By the time the everyman finishes reading the malarkey he doesn't know anything useful and now believes he has a handle on a complex and multifaceted issue. Ergo he actually knows less than when he started.

Clubber 9y ago

You assume that everyman doesn't attempt to read it. Everyman read it for years. The news dumbed everything down when they chased the tabloid dollars.

washadjeffmad 9y ago
Again. Remember an early symbol countering the yellow journals was the Old Gray Lady. And thorough, well researched, objective journalism has atrophied or gone underground in the wake of the digital readership monetization crisis. And AFK, how many reporters are there now versus news readers? When you can buy your rhetoric and blurbs right from the think tanks in partnership with SocialCo(TM) and have anyone who looks the part read off the script, it makes sense not to spend the money on originality and depth. It takes some mental acrobatics not to want to call that an ersatz representation or a fools interpretation of what journalism is.
- Florin_Andrei 9y ago
  Things are not completely bad, however. I tend to not go on Facebook too often. But when I do, there are two categories of news (or news and news-like, I should say) items on my feed: - posts by Nautilus Magazine, Aeon Magazine, along with articles from more specialized journals like Sky & Telescope, etc - reposts by Facebook friends from fringe blogs The contrast is so huge, it's hilarious. I read one category for actual information; the other could be entertainment, except it tends to push me towards cynicism, so I end up just ignoring it. Maybe I should restructure my Google News feed and just use that instead.
- Clubber 9y ago
  The NYT just seems so one sided since Trump (and probably before). I mean there are two sides to DACA and both have merit. There was an article the other day that tried to explain away whites being killed by cops as suicide by cop. That's not good reporting, that borders on propaganda. I mean I know opinion pages are garbage, but damn. EDIT: Suicide by cop article was Wapo, not NYT. I need to stop reading Wapo. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/07/11/arent-more-white-people-than-black-people-killed-by-police-yes-but-no/?utm_term=.ee9ffa098d0a https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/07/1... I don't even mind that much that they pick a side if they do it at the end, I just want them to present both arguments, and their merits so I can decide. When the best out there does what the NYT is doing now, we're in trouble.