3 ms·

Blaming the internet is absolutely unfair. Before, it was really hard to expose bad journalism, that's the foundation of the myth about times of good journalism

Blaming the internet is absolutely unfair. Before, it was really hard to expose bad journalism, that's the foundation of the myth about times of good journalism. Duranty was awarded with Pulitzer for blatant lies in the first half of XX century, and it took more than 60 years for this to be widely revealed. It wouldn't be that easy for him nowadays.

neuronic 8y ago
The Internet has at the very least not bettered the conditions for journalism because the advantages it brought are completely drowned out by new mechanism of consumption and its subsequent fights for readers.
- kingofhdds 8y ago
  It changed conditions for media business as much as for many other industries, making things economically worse for some and better for others. It didn't make journalism worse, for sure. Media has been always flourishing on sensationalism, propaganda, pushing somebody's interests, and manipulating social strivings. And I mean it - it happened to me to talk to a historian who worked with first European newspapers which appeared soon after press (as a mechanism) became a common thing - most of them were exactly like modern clickbaity news, it's just that it was easier to amuse a reader back then, so their sensations look a bit naïve by modern standards. You can re-read Mark Twain for very recognizable patterns of political reporting of later times, then came mafia influence, revolutionary preachers, liars, and useful idiots. Bribery, business interests, gov't intrusions, political biases. And then internet appeared, and broke the beauty of journalism :-) The phenomenon of US press as being generally useful as whole (compared to USSR, or eve Europe) is because of its diversity - ensured by freedom of speech - call it a really big choice of distortions. And the internet made this choice even wider, actually. "Good journalism" which is impartial, and correct, and truth-loving is a romantic myth, and always been.

neuronic 8y ago

The Internet has at the very least not bettered the conditions for journalism because the advantages it brought are completely drowned out by new mechanism of consumption and its subsequent fights for readers.

kingofhdds 8y ago
It changed conditions for media business as much as for many other industries, making things economically worse for some and better for others. It didn't make journalism worse, for sure. Media has been always flourishing on sensationalism, propaganda, pushing somebody's interests, and manipulating social strivings. And I mean it - it happened to me to talk to a historian who worked with first European newspapers which appeared soon after press (as a mechanism) became a common thing - most of them were exactly like modern clickbaity news, it's just that it was easier to amuse a reader back then, so their sensations look a bit naïve by modern standards. You can re-read Mark Twain for very recognizable patterns of political reporting of later times, then came mafia influence, revolutionary preachers, liars, and useful idiots. Bribery, business interests, gov't intrusions, political biases. And then internet appeared, and broke the beauty of journalism :-) The phenomenon of US press as being generally useful as whole (compared to USSR, or eve Europe) is because of its diversity - ensured by freedom of speech - call it a really big choice of distortions. And the internet made this choice even wider, actually. "Good journalism" which is impartial, and correct, and truth-loving is a romantic myth, and always been.