4 ms·

Ironically, the premise of this critique of journalism is as false as the Amazon story it cites. Algorithms and the Internet didn't ruin journalism, and this is

by vonnik 9y ago

Ironically, the premise of this critique of journalism is as false as the Amazon story it cites. Algorithms and the Internet didn't ruin journalism, and this is not the end of the world. Journalism was corrupted by sensationalism as soon as it moved from subscriptions to ads, which in the US was in the 19th century. Remember when we discovered a colony of aliens on the moon? Yeah, that was the New York Sun way before we had electricity... Remember when Hearst started the Spanish-American war? No Internet then. Bad signals via the media is a very old problem. We should think about it, but we shouldn't think it's the Internet's fault.

baxtr 9y ago
Fully agree. Reminds me of this: https://xkcd.com/1227/ https://xkcd.com/1227/
- rm_-rf_slash 9y ago
  To be fair, the snippets' chosen dates are from 1870s onward. Historians fuzzily date the start of the industrial revolution at around 1750. So that's about 100 years of industrialization and modernity. No wonder the art of conversation was considered dying by that point: it has been under assault from modernity for generations.
schoen 9y ago
All of http://harmful.cat-v.org/journalism/gell-mann-amnesia-effect http://harmful.cat-v.org/journalism/gell-mann-amnesia-effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silly_season https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silly_season https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism represent criticisms of the seriousness or competence of journalism, in various cases going back somewhere between decades and centuries. We should probably not think that there was ever a golden age in which all journalism was sober, cautious, and informed. But it also seems like the pressures facing journalism that Maciej points to are quite real. How can we get a better historical perspective on how well different kinds of journalism have worked over time? (I guess a similar problem confronts anyone who wants to criticize -- or try to redeem -- institutions that seem to be in decline.)
tpeo 9y ago
Contemporary journalism indeed doesn't have a monopoly on terribleness, as you've mentioned. But this is actually the point. Because if I'm really going after the heart of this criticism, it really doesn't matter if I understand the selection function over all stories in the newsroom as an actual algorithm meant to maximize clicks or as some hazy set or rules of thumb and prejudices meant to maximize advertisement revenue. The point is that neither maximizes either the informativeness of a story nor the likelihood of it being true. Also, I don't actually "remember" the Spanish-American war. I understand what you mean, but this is an awkward way to put it.
notzorbo3 9y ago
Your entire comment is a straw man. The article doesn't claim the internet ruined journalism, and I don't even know where your "end of the world" comment is coming from. You're also comparing papers like the New York Sun and other tabloids, while this article is talking about respectable papers such as the New York Times. I'll quote the relevant part of the article: > The real story in this mess is not the threat that algorithms pose to Amazon shoppers, but the threat that algorithms pose to journalism. By forcing reporters to optimize every story for clicks, not giving them time to check or contextualize their reporting, and requiring them to race to publish follow-on articles on every topic, the clickbait economics of online media encourage carelessness and drama. This is particularly true for technical topics outside the reporter’s area of expertise. > And reporters have no choice but to chase clicks. Because Google and Facebook have a duopoly on online advertising, the only measure of success in publishing is whether a story goes viral on social media. Authors are evaluated by how individual stories perform online, and face constant pressure to make them more arresting.
- vonnik 9y ago
  Your entire comment misses the point. What I'm saying is that most journalism was always this way. Algorithms don't exacerbate this tendency any more than daily sales did for the Sun. As a former reporter for the NYT, I can say that journalists there are subjected to many of the same pressures, if in a more limited way than reporters at Buzzfeed. And that sales always mattered at the Times, too. Reporters have always, always chased readers.
  - danielam 9y ago
    I agree that journalism (particularly mass media which followed the invention of rail transportation) has been compromised by advertising. However, I'm not quite certain that subscriptions freed newspapers from advertising since subscriptions alone cannot cover the costs of running a newspaper. Furthermore, the problem with advertising isn't just how tighly linked to newspaper sales it is, but how it can constrain what's written in newspapers for fear of having clients pull advertising from the newspaper. So subscriptions may reduce the dependence on advertising and offer more freedom to journalists, but not entirely. Also, the danger of subscriptions is that we can only pay for so many and this limitation can constrain the number of sources we can draw from. The challenges facing newspapers are complex. A general comment: while it is important to draw attention to the perverse incentives journalism is subject to, it is also important not to fall prey to the fallacy that people must act according to perverse incentives. Nothing justifies publishing unsubstantiated nonsense. Journalists are morally bound not to do so.
closeparen 9y ago
> that was the New York Sun There have always been crappy tabloid publications. The new development is the fall of the respectable/professional outlets. (Some national papers are hanging on, but most smaller cities' city papers have been decimated).

by vonnik 9y ago

baxtr 9y ago

Fully agree. Reminds me of this: https://xkcd.com/1227/ https://xkcd.com/1227/

rm_-rf_slash 9y ago
To be fair, the snippets' chosen dates are from 1870s onward. Historians fuzzily date the start of the industrial revolution at around 1750. So that's about 100 years of industrialization and modernity. No wonder the art of conversation was considered dying by that point: it has been under assault from modernity for generations.

schoen 9y ago

All of http://harmful.cat-v.org/journalism/gell-mann-amnesia-effect http://harmful.cat-v.org/journalism/gell-mann-amnesia-effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silly_season https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silly_season https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism represent criticisms of the seriousness or competence of journalism, in various cases going back somewhere between decades and centuries. We should probably not think that there was ever a golden age in which all journalism was sober, cautious, and informed. But it also seems like the pressures facing journalism that Maciej points to are quite real. How can we get a better historical perspective on how well different kinds of journalism have worked over time? (I guess a similar problem confronts anyone who wants to criticize -- or try to redeem -- institutions that seem to be in decline.)

tpeo 9y ago

Contemporary journalism indeed doesn't have a monopoly on terribleness, as you've mentioned. But this is actually the point. Because if I'm really going after the heart of this criticism, it really doesn't matter if I understand the selection function over all stories in the newsroom as an actual algorithm meant to maximize clicks or as some hazy set or rules of thumb and prejudices meant to maximize advertisement revenue. The point is that neither maximizes either the informativeness of a story nor the likelihood of it being true. Also, I don't actually "remember" the Spanish-American war. I understand what you mean, but this is an awkward way to put it.

notzorbo3 9y ago

Your entire comment is a straw man. The article doesn't claim the internet ruined journalism, and I don't even know where your "end of the world" comment is coming from. You're also comparing papers like the New York Sun and other tabloids, while this article is talking about respectable papers such as the New York Times. I'll quote the relevant part of the article: > The real story in this mess is not the threat that algorithms pose to Amazon shoppers, but the threat that algorithms pose to journalism. By forcing reporters to optimize every story for clicks, not giving them time to check or contextualize their reporting, and requiring them to race to publish follow-on articles on every topic, the clickbait economics of online media encourage carelessness and drama. This is particularly true for technical topics outside the reporter’s area of expertise. > And reporters have no choice but to chase clicks. Because Google and Facebook have a duopoly on online advertising, the only measure of success in publishing is whether a story goes viral on social media. Authors are evaluated by how individual stories perform online, and face constant pressure to make them more arresting.

vonnik 9y ago
Your entire comment misses the point. What I'm saying is that most journalism was always this way. Algorithms don't exacerbate this tendency any more than daily sales did for the Sun. As a former reporter for the NYT, I can say that journalists there are subjected to many of the same pressures, if in a more limited way than reporters at Buzzfeed. And that sales always mattered at the Times, too. Reporters have always, always chased readers.
- danielam 9y ago
  I agree that journalism (particularly mass media which followed the invention of rail transportation) has been compromised by advertising. However, I'm not quite certain that subscriptions freed newspapers from advertising since subscriptions alone cannot cover the costs of running a newspaper. Furthermore, the problem with advertising isn't just how tighly linked to newspaper sales it is, but how it can constrain what's written in newspapers for fear of having clients pull advertising from the newspaper. So subscriptions may reduce the dependence on advertising and offer more freedom to journalists, but not entirely. Also, the danger of subscriptions is that we can only pay for so many and this limitation can constrain the number of sources we can draw from. The challenges facing newspapers are complex. A general comment: while it is important to draw attention to the perverse incentives journalism is subject to, it is also important not to fall prey to the fallacy that people must act according to perverse incentives. Nothing justifies publishing unsubstantiated nonsense. Journalists are morally bound not to do so.

closeparen 9y ago

> that was the New York Sun There have always been crappy tabloid publications. The new development is the fall of the respectable/professional outlets. (Some national papers are hanging on, but most smaller cities' city papers have been decimated).