2 ms·

i dont know. it didn't have to be. journalists embraced social media so tightly both for getting input for their work as well as for audience. They 'd hate to a

i dont know. it didn't have to be. journalists embraced social media so tightly both for getting input for their work as well as for audience. They 'd hate to admit it but they became lazy. Partly, they made facebook (and twitter) as mainstream as it is now.

stevenwoo 9y ago
I don't think it was an obvious causal relationship ala newspapers making Facebook relevant. I worked as a contractor at the Mercury News a few years ago and the vast majority of their income came from those Frys' flyers. It might as well be a subsidiary of Frys. Craigslist/Ebay/online marketplaces killed the classifieds/ads that paid for fat newspapers for a quarter when I was a kid in the 70' and 80's. Newspapers were pretty desperate for eyeballs when their income started sinking then in the early days of Facebook and now for survival.
dredmorbius 9y ago
Facebook has over a billion daly actve mobile, and over two billion monthly active users. It is the biggest single media platform in the history of the planet. If you're in the audience business, it's simply a fact of life. https://zephoria.com/top-15-valuable-facebook-statistics/amp/ https://zephoria.com/top-15-valuable-facebook-statistics/amp... Media tends to winner-take-all dynamics for various reasons. Zipf's law means that at best a small number of outlets will be significant. These are characteristics of media platforms, period. Not journalists' or publishers' fault.