4 ms·
The difference is, the newspaper paid professional reporters to write the news. They did a fantastic job (in most cases) of making sure they had their facts str
by LocalPCGuy 8y ago
The difference is, the newspaper paid professional reporters to write the news. They did a fantastic job (in most cases) of making sure they had their facts straight, and local news broke most of the big stories you eventually heard about on national news sources. Even today, a LOT of the national news starts at local news sources, either papers or local channels, but that is getting worse all the time due to the cuts.
Instead, on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, etc. you get a flood of "news", but you have to vet it all yourself to see what is true and what isn't. And many many people don't do that - if they trust the person sharing, they trust the "news". Or if it agrees with their world view, they trust the "news". Sometimes amazing things are covered - live Reddit threads have broken some amazing stories, with details from local residents. Same with Twitter, etc. But for every one of those stories there are 100s that are fake, or actually pushing alternative narratives that are not based in reality for their own ends. And that flood is just too much for the average person to actually separate the fact from the fiction.
Social media does not equal journalism. That isn't "old industry" thinking. That is just a sad fact.
- simplecomplex 8y agoIt turns out, many people find curating their own updates that are relevant to them from the web more valuable than spending money on a newspaper.
- ethbro 8y agoI believe the parent's argument is that people are terrible at "curating their own updates that are relevant to them from the web." And that having a voter base which exclusively does so is antithetical to objective truth and a functioning democracy.
- simplecomplex 8y agoI am part of the voting base, and I much prefer having greater choice in what I read and where I consume my news. I'm more informed now than I was before the Web. I'd prefer not to go back to a world where the only source of current events was the newspapers and television.
- wavefunction 8y agoWho's arguing that? You can get important local news from a newspaper/local journalist source and still 'self curate' your own interests. Millions of people are already doing this.
- Retric 8y agoEvery time I have known what was going on and read a local newspaper covering it there has been a host of errors. Local news is ok for having a vague idea what's going on, and little else. So sure, there is some value there. But, less than many people seem to think. PS: OK, local movie showtimes where generally correct.
- ethbro 8y agoI typically find a large amount of information that simply doesn't exist online in my local paper. And don't get me started on ranting about Facebook trying to hamfistedly assume that mantle.
- EGreg 8y agoHave you seen wikinews? Their selection of topics and reporting may be much broader than what you are used to on your local news channel. If you even watch that.
- Animats 8y ago"The difference is, the newspaper paid professional reporters to write the news." Not write. Gather. The whole point of reporting is someone going out and collecting news. Not someone who already has it issuing a press release. “Whatever a patron desires to get published is advertising; whatever he wants to keep out of the paper is news." (Attributed to many, but seen as a desk sign on some newspaper editors desks.)