4 ms·

Most news media seems optimised for power users, people who want to read 100 stories a day and have all the context to place them correctly. These are the power

Most news media seems optimised for power users, people who want to read 100 stories a day and have all the context to place them correctly. These are the power users, but, by definition, there are a few. This is the equivalent of everyone who wants to do photography being forced to use an SLR because phones don't have cameras. Or sports cars being the only type of car that exists, when most people just want to get to the office or the supermarket. How might we optimise a newspaper for the majority rather than the power-users? - Reduce it to one page, printing only the most important stories. In today's hurried times, that's all many people have time for. Or keep it the same length as today's newspapers, but publish it only weekly. Or a mobile app where each story fits in one screen. Condense it down to the most important facts. - Give users the context. If a minister was accused of taking money from companies X and Y and he says that he didn't take money from X, say, "The minister didn't respond to allegations that he took money from Y". The majority of readers wouldn't know that unless it's pointed out to them. - Don't report news that's likely to be irrelevant a quarter from now, like the stock market going up 0.5%, or that Apple is going to launch cheaper iPads tomorrow. - Report hyperlocal news, like your neighbor 50m away being burgled, not a politician two states away choosing to side with someone else. We all care more about our neighborhood. Tell me air pollution levels in my neighborhood, or a few km away, not 2000 km away in Delhi. We all care about our immediate environment more. In a way, this is the only kind of news people got before technology like the press, telephone or radio was invented. It's odd that in today's world, I'm more connected to what's happening far away than in my neighborhood. - Quality over quantity: Don't print rumors, unconfirmed news, news without fact-checking it and waiting for the dust to settle. Write well so that readers feel that the writer cares, rather than filler to write 100 words by 11AM, and who gives a damn what those words are.

aargh_aargh 9y ago
This is gold. Are journalists typically aware of these improvement suggestions or are they just on the hamster wheel?
- wilsonnb 9y ago
  Neither. Most of these are baseless critiques, in my opinion. The Economist has a section at the beginning of each issue that gives you a one paragraph or less overview of important events that happened that week. Many people also only read the Sunday edition of the paper instead of the daily publications. I don't know why the person you're replying to suggest that the news is usually contextless. Pretty much any article I read from WaPo or NYT has all of the context you need towards the end of the article after stating the most recent or relevant facts. Reporting hyperlocal news is just not feasible in today's media climate. It's very hard to run a successful local news organization because you have to compete with all of the big players. Most of the news I read does not report on rumors or unconfirmed news, either. I somewhat agree that news that isn't relevant a quarter from now probably isn't important but it's important to someone. Sure, I don't care if the stock market went down .5% but many people do care about daily fluctuations of their investments or have jobs in the finance sector. Also, why choose a quarter as your time scale? Why not a week, a month, a year, a decade? Who is to say whether yearly stock market fluctuations are actually news worthy?
  - kartickv 9y ago
    A para a week is too little. Maybe news articles in your country have context, but often not in mine. Here's one example: http://bangaloremirror.indiatimes.com/bangalore/civic/rejuvenation-work-starts-at-sompura-lake/articleshow/63086169.cms http://bangaloremirror.indiatimes.com/bangalore/civic/rejuve... This doesn't give Bangaloreans the wider context: amidst all the talk of lake restoration, have there been any results yet? Has the inflow of garbage stopped, or is there even a plan to? What's the scope of the efforts? To restore lakes to the state they were in 30 years ago, or only to stop further decline? Is there any plan to reclaim any of land that has already been encroached for years? And so on. Hyperlocal news may not be feasible today, but since there's an umnet need, it's only a matter of time before someone figures out the right business model. "It might be important to someone" is an excuse to publish any and all news, which is exactly how the media ended up in today's situation. As for why choose a quarter as a timescale, you can choose some other timescale. Focus on essence of the argument rather than picking nits.

aargh_aargh 9y ago

This is gold. Are journalists typically aware of these improvement suggestions or are they just on the hamster wheel?

wilsonnb 9y ago
Neither. Most of these are baseless critiques, in my opinion. The Economist has a section at the beginning of each issue that gives you a one paragraph or less overview of important events that happened that week. Many people also only read the Sunday edition of the paper instead of the daily publications. I don't know why the person you're replying to suggest that the news is usually contextless. Pretty much any article I read from WaPo or NYT has all of the context you need towards the end of the article after stating the most recent or relevant facts. Reporting hyperlocal news is just not feasible in today's media climate. It's very hard to run a successful local news organization because you have to compete with all of the big players. Most of the news I read does not report on rumors or unconfirmed news, either. I somewhat agree that news that isn't relevant a quarter from now probably isn't important but it's important to someone. Sure, I don't care if the stock market went down .5% but many people do care about daily fluctuations of their investments or have jobs in the finance sector. Also, why choose a quarter as your time scale? Why not a week, a month, a year, a decade? Who is to say whether yearly stock market fluctuations are actually news worthy?
- kartickv 9y ago
  A para a week is too little. Maybe news articles in your country have context, but often not in mine. Here's one example: http://bangaloremirror.indiatimes.com/bangalore/civic/rejuvenation-work-starts-at-sompura-lake/articleshow/63086169.cms http://bangaloremirror.indiatimes.com/bangalore/civic/rejuve... This doesn't give Bangaloreans the wider context: amidst all the talk of lake restoration, have there been any results yet? Has the inflow of garbage stopped, or is there even a plan to? What's the scope of the efforts? To restore lakes to the state they were in 30 years ago, or only to stop further decline? Is there any plan to reclaim any of land that has already been encroached for years? And so on. Hyperlocal news may not be feasible today, but since there's an umnet need, it's only a matter of time before someone figures out the right business model. "It might be important to someone" is an excuse to publish any and all news, which is exactly how the media ended up in today's situation. As for why choose a quarter as a timescale, you can choose some other timescale. Focus on essence of the argument rather than picking nits.