3 ms·

That was my thought (the city council session should be on the web) at first, but I believe a person is still needed to make a summary, to explain certain thing

That was my thought (the city council session should be on the web) at first, but I believe a person is still needed to make a summary, to explain certain things (sometimes people use lingo or refer to things you might not know), verify claims, etc. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me I have just described the job of a journalist.

buboard 8y ago
Or of a reddit commenter. Or of an HN commenter. Or a peer reviewer. Or a blog poster. There is a wide selection nowadays. No need to channel everything through a handful of individuals.
- stilley2 8y ago
  But the journalist is likely more of an expert on the issues. While there are great comments on HN and Reddit, there are also a lot of arm chair "experts," who now have just as much exposure as real experts. If these scheme is to be productive, we'd need to add some way to assess people's qualifications when we read their comments.
  - buboard 8y ago
    The media can "create" experts a lot more convincingly. In fact it's very hard for someone to gain "expert" status on reddit for example. It's hard to do it when your historic timeline is visible at every point (see also: paul krugman). It's easier for a mediocre journalist to hide behind her newspaper's brand (you see it every day with fluff filler pieces). Expertise is a perception problem , and perception can easily be gamed. It happens in mainstream media too, but it's harded to measure there than on the internet. I don't think we need to regress back to experts, that's always a power play. Giving people a plurality of opinions works better.
- Faark 8y ago
  Or a facebook post. Or a russian twitter bot. None of them you can trust. All of those selected for you to see by algorithms. And you really want to tell me this is no different or definitively better than the last century's news systems? Or even that we understand what impacts the switch to social media will have?
  - jtbayly 8y ago
    Certainly it’s no worse than this century’s news system, which produces, as far as I can tell, journalists that do exactly the same thing. Find a source you know (through research and watching over time) you can trust and read them, whether they publish in Reddit or USAToday. That’s something you can do today that wasn’t really possible before.
  - buboard 8y ago
    > None of them you can trust. you re making a strawman. i wouldn't trust my news from you

buboard 8y ago

Or of a reddit commenter. Or of an HN commenter. Or a peer reviewer. Or a blog poster. There is a wide selection nowadays. No need to channel everything through a handful of individuals.

stilley2 8y ago
But the journalist is likely more of an expert on the issues. While there are great comments on HN and Reddit, there are also a lot of arm chair "experts," who now have just as much exposure as real experts. If these scheme is to be productive, we'd need to add some way to assess people's qualifications when we read their comments.
- buboard 8y ago
  The media can "create" experts a lot more convincingly. In fact it's very hard for someone to gain "expert" status on reddit for example. It's hard to do it when your historic timeline is visible at every point (see also: paul krugman). It's easier for a mediocre journalist to hide behind her newspaper's brand (you see it every day with fluff filler pieces). Expertise is a perception problem , and perception can easily be gamed. It happens in mainstream media too, but it's harded to measure there than on the internet. I don't think we need to regress back to experts, that's always a power play. Giving people a plurality of opinions works better.
Faark 8y ago
Or a facebook post. Or a russian twitter bot. None of them you can trust. All of those selected for you to see by algorithms. And you really want to tell me this is no different or definitively better than the last century's news systems? Or even that we understand what impacts the switch to social media will have?
- jtbayly 8y ago
  Certainly it’s no worse than this century’s news system, which produces, as far as I can tell, journalists that do exactly the same thing. Find a source you know (through research and watching over time) you can trust and read them, whether they publish in Reddit or USAToday. That’s something you can do today that wasn’t really possible before.
- buboard 8y ago
  > None of them you can trust. you re making a strawman. i wouldn't trust my news from you