4 ms·

So in case the OP is too young or forgot, before the internet, the Economist wasn't free either. Now, I get a few articles for free, and if I pay (and I suspec

So in case the OP is too young or forgot, before the internet, the Economist wasn't free either. Now, I get a few articles for free, and if I pay (and I suspect a subscription has become cheaper in today's money) I get plenty of additional stuff to the paper version: world-class audio, the ability to read on any device or on paper and other content (e.g 1834 magazine, world in, world if) Paying for stuff is not how the Internet got wrong. The opposite, in fact, we need to make sure independent journalism can exist outside FAANG.

pdimitar 8y ago
The media keeps being consolidated every day. Visiting popular outlets only makes them more viable targets for acquisition by conglomerates. And quite frankly, internet journalism was fine for 15-20 years... suddenly everybody cries "we're gonna die!". Dunno, seems weird to me -- but I admit I am not following news about this with much fervor. Many people wouldn't care if 95% of the internet media disappears tomorrow. Most write clickbait opinionated BS anyway. So the alarmism around the issue seems to mostly serve the business survival interests of the said media and nothing else.
- cannonedhamster 8y ago
  Internet journalism wasn't "fine". Internet journalism was subsidized by television and advertiser ratings. Then both television and advertising payouts took a hit leading to many newspapers, television studios, and internet news sites to merge or die. Most "news" is basically just filler, and with barriers to entry removed due to the internet it's easy to be ultra-local on Facebook, faster to send news through Twitter, and real long form content takes actual money to produce. Many internet sites do die all the time. New ones spring up all the time, but it seems to be the good ones that actually die and the garbage that continues to accrue. The reason that clickbait works is because it understand human psychology. I think that says more about humans than people realize.
  - pdimitar 8y ago
    > Internet journalism wasn't "fine". Respectfully disagree, though we most certainly have different definitions. To me journalism does not only encompass the professional journalists but all kinds of random people who feel the need to film something and post it in Twitter with 2 lines of descriptive text. In that regard, and even before Twitter was a thing, internet always found a way to report things to the population. So IMO even if most outlets go out of business, the world would barely notice. > Most "news" is basically just filler That we fully agree on. > Many internet sites do die all the time. New ones spring up all the time... And this is absolutely fine. Indicates a relatively healthy system. > ...but it seems to be the good ones that actually die and the garbage that continues to accrue Agreed as well, but IMO what we are starting to observe -- news sites getting more and more annoying and/or using more and more obnoxious tracking in the hopes of cashing out through selling of personal data -- is the self-correction of the system at work. Namely natural selection. I have zero sympathy for people who feel the need to use shady practices to survive; maybe their business is not that valuable and they refuse to see it. That's normal, everybody will fight for the sweet dollars -- plus the humans at large resist change in general -- but none of us should care if it's hard for them to survive as a business or not. As an additional point, I don't think that most people should be paid to write at all. As you pointed out, most writings are garbage anyway. > The reason that clickbait works is because it understand human psychology. I think that says more about humans than people realize. Absolutely. This will not change anytime soon. Maybe centuries down the road. The average human being is not very bright and that's the sad reality.
    - cannonedhamster 8y ago
      You know...I don't think we really disagree on most points. I really enjoy HN for these constructive, if lively, discussions.

pdimitar 8y ago

The media keeps being consolidated every day. Visiting popular outlets only makes them more viable targets for acquisition by conglomerates. And quite frankly, internet journalism was fine for 15-20 years... suddenly everybody cries "we're gonna die!". Dunno, seems weird to me -- but I admit I am not following news about this with much fervor. Many people wouldn't care if 95% of the internet media disappears tomorrow. Most write clickbait opinionated BS anyway. So the alarmism around the issue seems to mostly serve the business survival interests of the said media and nothing else.

cannonedhamster 8y ago
Internet journalism wasn't "fine". Internet journalism was subsidized by television and advertiser ratings. Then both television and advertising payouts took a hit leading to many newspapers, television studios, and internet news sites to merge or die. Most "news" is basically just filler, and with barriers to entry removed due to the internet it's easy to be ultra-local on Facebook, faster to send news through Twitter, and real long form content takes actual money to produce. Many internet sites do die all the time. New ones spring up all the time, but it seems to be the good ones that actually die and the garbage that continues to accrue. The reason that clickbait works is because it understand human psychology. I think that says more about humans than people realize.
- pdimitar 8y ago
  > Internet journalism wasn't "fine". Respectfully disagree, though we most certainly have different definitions. To me journalism does not only encompass the professional journalists but all kinds of random people who feel the need to film something and post it in Twitter with 2 lines of descriptive text. In that regard, and even before Twitter was a thing, internet always found a way to report things to the population. So IMO even if most outlets go out of business, the world would barely notice. > Most "news" is basically just filler That we fully agree on. > Many internet sites do die all the time. New ones spring up all the time... And this is absolutely fine. Indicates a relatively healthy system. > ...but it seems to be the good ones that actually die and the garbage that continues to accrue Agreed as well, but IMO what we are starting to observe -- news sites getting more and more annoying and/or using more and more obnoxious tracking in the hopes of cashing out through selling of personal data -- is the self-correction of the system at work. Namely natural selection. I have zero sympathy for people who feel the need to use shady practices to survive; maybe their business is not that valuable and they refuse to see it. That's normal, everybody will fight for the sweet dollars -- plus the humans at large resist change in general -- but none of us should care if it's hard for them to survive as a business or not. As an additional point, I don't think that most people should be paid to write at all. As you pointed out, most writings are garbage anyway. > The reason that clickbait works is because it understand human psychology. I think that says more about humans than people realize. Absolutely. This will not change anytime soon. Maybe centuries down the road. The average human being is not very bright and that's the sad reality.
  - cannonedhamster 8y ago
    You know...I don't think we really disagree on most points. I really enjoy HN for these constructive, if lively, discussions.