5 ms·

This should instantly decrement Bloomberg's credibility, for all major stories, by at least 50%. I know it does for me. They are incentivizing sensationalism.

by Bud 8y ago

This should instantly decrement Bloomberg's credibility, for all major stories, by at least 50%. I know it does for me. They are incentivizing sensationalism. This doesn't seem like a good journalistic practice.

airstrike 8y ago
> They are incentivizing sensationalism. As opposed to all the other media outlets who aren't?
- make3 8y ago
  something is not right just because because others also do it
- strathmeyer 8y ago
  Yeah maybe you should check out some other media outlets.
Lazare 8y ago
It's ALWAYS been the case that journalists that sell more papers (or more recently, attract more viewers, or more ad impressions) get more prestige and money than ones who do not. If you thought that journalists were entirely disinterested seekers of truth, then uh...I just don't know what to tell you, but you're going to be really disappointed when you find out the incentives your doctor, lawyer, and car mechanic have. :)
- dwaltrip 8y ago
  The modern ad-tech driven assault-on-attention mania is not similar in degree to what came before it, even if it is similar in kind. As engineers know very well, the qualitative properties of a system often change significantly when a parameter increases by an order of magnitude.
  - Lazare 8y ago
    The phrase "yellow journalism" is over 100 years old now. The talking heads on cable news are well aware that their salaries and continued employment depend on their ability to attract views. And there have been plenty of scandals in the "old school" serious print media of journalists making stuff up for prestige or renown (Stephen Glass, Janet Cooke). People look back with nostalgia on an era that never existed.
    - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
      > the phrase "yellow journalism" is over 100 years old I don’t know if anyone has studied the longitudinal accuracy of journalists. The 19th century brought unique economies of scale to mass-market journalism (through industrialised printing and steam-powered rail transport). “Realizing that they could expand their audience by abandoning politically polarized content, thus making more money off of advertising, American newspapers began to abandon their partisan politics in favor of less political reporting starting around 1900“ [1]. Quality thus increased, and remained increased, until the Internet made niche journalism profitable again. Journalism 150 years ago was crap. And a lot of journalism today is crap. It does not follow, however, that the intervening years were similarly dominated by dumbassery. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism
      - Lazare 8y ago
        > Quality thus increased, and remained increased, until the Internet made narrow-niche journalism profitable again. I basically agree with your overall point, but I think you may have that part backwards, actually. Advertising in general (and for newspapers, classified advertising in particular) represented an enormous torrent of money. The internet killed that. It's not that the internet has made narrow-niche journalism profitable again (it never stopped; there have always been niche magazines and newsletters), it's that the internet stopped newspapers being profitable at all, and now all we're left with is the narrow niches that never went away. Are we worse off as a society now that all that money flows straight to Facebook and Google instead of the Village Voice and it's kin? Sure, maybe. But was journalism magically more ethical during that period? I see no evidence of such. And I don't think lying for a Pulitzer is any more noble than lying for some page views.
matt4077 8y ago
Talk about sensationalism, and attaching specific changes in values to individual news..
joesb 8y ago
That's like saying the Pulitzer prize incentivizing sensationalism. Big news move markets. Big news is hard to comes by. Big news requires efforts. What other factors do you want the incentive to be on? Number of news per day? Amount of cat picture? Number of Like?

by Bud 8y ago

airstrike 8y ago

> They are incentivizing sensationalism. As opposed to all the other media outlets who aren't?

make3 8y ago
something is not right just because because others also do it
strathmeyer 8y ago
Yeah maybe you should check out some other media outlets.

Lazare 8y ago

It's ALWAYS been the case that journalists that sell more papers (or more recently, attract more viewers, or more ad impressions) get more prestige and money than ones who do not. If you thought that journalists were entirely disinterested seekers of truth, then uh...I just don't know what to tell you, but you're going to be really disappointed when you find out the incentives your doctor, lawyer, and car mechanic have. :)

dwaltrip 8y ago
The modern ad-tech driven assault-on-attention mania is not similar in degree to what came before it, even if it is similar in kind. As engineers know very well, the qualitative properties of a system often change significantly when a parameter increases by an order of magnitude.
- Lazare 8y ago
  The phrase "yellow journalism" is over 100 years old now. The talking heads on cable news are well aware that their salaries and continued employment depend on their ability to attract views. And there have been plenty of scandals in the "old school" serious print media of journalists making stuff up for prestige or renown (Stephen Glass, Janet Cooke). People look back with nostalgia on an era that never existed.
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    > the phrase "yellow journalism" is over 100 years old I don’t know if anyone has studied the longitudinal accuracy of journalists. The 19th century brought unique economies of scale to mass-market journalism (through industrialised printing and steam-powered rail transport). “Realizing that they could expand their audience by abandoning politically polarized content, thus making more money off of advertising, American newspapers began to abandon their partisan politics in favor of less political reporting starting around 1900“ [1]. Quality thus increased, and remained increased, until the Internet made niche journalism profitable again. Journalism 150 years ago was crap. And a lot of journalism today is crap. It does not follow, however, that the intervening years were similarly dominated by dumbassery. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism
    - Lazare 8y ago
      > Quality thus increased, and remained increased, until the Internet made narrow-niche journalism profitable again. I basically agree with your overall point, but I think you may have that part backwards, actually. Advertising in general (and for newspapers, classified advertising in particular) represented an enormous torrent of money. The internet killed that. It's not that the internet has made narrow-niche journalism profitable again (it never stopped; there have always been niche magazines and newsletters), it's that the internet stopped newspapers being profitable at all, and now all we're left with is the narrow niches that never went away. Are we worse off as a society now that all that money flows straight to Facebook and Google instead of the Village Voice and it's kin? Sure, maybe. But was journalism magically more ethical during that period? I see no evidence of such. And I don't think lying for a Pulitzer is any more noble than lying for some page views.

matt4077 8y ago

Talk about sensationalism, and attaching specific changes in values to individual news..

joesb 8y ago

That's like saying the Pulitzer prize incentivizing sensationalism. Big news move markets. Big news is hard to comes by. Big news requires efforts. What other factors do you want the incentive to be on? Number of news per day? Amount of cat picture? Number of Like?