4 ms·

I think it may not, because we live in the "attention economy" for media. I think it would take something to reverse this somehow, because it incentivizes "hot

I think it may not, because we live in the "attention economy" for media. I think it would take something to reverse this somehow, because it incentivizes "hot takes".

lbotos 8y ago
this week I had two fantasies: - kickstarter for investigative journalism. Get decent writers, get people that are willing to pay to hear about what they find, and hope they maintain ethics and integrity. - a monthly news source, that is focused on "slow news". Sure, XYZ happened, 30 days later, what's relevant. 3 months later, what was the overall trend? It's not meta, but definitely "slow" and the goal is to focus on the moving average vs the noisy data.
- untog 8y ago
  > kickstarter for investigative journalism That's a newspaper subscription > a monthly news source, that is focused on "slow news" That's a magazine
  - themoonbus 8y ago
    Specifically, the New York Times and the New Yorker. They've both been around for 100+ years. Sometimes the tech industry bubble produces hilarious comments...
    - lbotos 8y ago
      Do you read either, right now? The NYT is suuuuuuuper biased. I want liberal freedoms to be allowed to people, but they are pushing an agenda. Really strong. I don't want to subsidize the stories I don't care about. That's the difference. Why should we? The New Yorker is a little better, but it's still "people" focused. I want more macro views. I tried WSJ and Financial Times. Both suffered a bit from "fluff" and I wasn't going to give them $300/yr to feel like I was paying for filler. I'm sad that you think I'm incapable of appreciating newspapers or magazines. I just think that both of those concepts are failing. What's the future look like? <3
      - untog 8y ago
        Here's the bad news: there is no such thing as unbiased news. For example: > I don't want to subsidize the stories I don't care about. You, as the chooser (or editor) of stories are introducing bias already, before any reporting is done.
        eropple 8y ago
        It almost reads as if the person to whom you reply wants their own personal biases reinforced. Hm.
        a_tractor 8y ago
        It sounds more like a desire for more granular control as a way to access the things in which they are interested without wasting resources or time on things in which they are not. Or you can just call everything "bias" to make a condescending assumption about someone you don't know.
      - 52-6F-62 8y ago
        In spite of some of those comments I’d like to point out there are a lot of great magazines still running US: - The Atlantic - Harpers - Wired still does great long form - Bloomberg Businessweek does as well - Help me out people... Canada: - Maclean’s - the Walrus - Taddle Creek The concepts aren’t failing. They still inspire lengthy discussions and awareness on a wide range of subjects. And they’re available in multiple forms- paper, web, and other digital subscriptions like in house apps or Google or Apple News
    - ummonk 8y ago
      Both are doing fine financially.
- minimaxir 8y ago
  > kickstarter for investigative journalism. Get decent writers, get people that are willing to pay to hear about what they find, and hope they maintain ethics and integrity. That's been done multiple times, mostly recently with Civil, which combines freelance journalism with the blockchain! https://civil.co/ https://civil.co/ Almost all of them fail due to salary costs. https://www.coindesk.com/civil-startup-token-crypto-ethereum https://www.coindesk.com/civil-startup-token-crypto-ethereum
  - jackcosgrove 8y ago
    > freelance journalism with the blockchain! There's nothing new under the sun. Well back to the drawing board...
- vertline3 8y ago
  I'm glad that you are thinking about it. I don't know if there are any easy solutions.

I think it may not, because we live in the "attention economy" for media. I think it would take something to reverse this somehow, because it incentivizes "hot takes".

lbotos 8y ago

this week I had two fantasies: - kickstarter for investigative journalism. Get decent writers, get people that are willing to pay to hear about what they find, and hope they maintain ethics and integrity. - a monthly news source, that is focused on "slow news". Sure, XYZ happened, 30 days later, what's relevant. 3 months later, what was the overall trend? It's not meta, but definitely "slow" and the goal is to focus on the moving average vs the noisy data.

untog 8y ago
> kickstarter for investigative journalism That's a newspaper subscription > a monthly news source, that is focused on "slow news" That's a magazine
- themoonbus 8y ago
  Specifically, the New York Times and the New Yorker. They've both been around for 100+ years. Sometimes the tech industry bubble produces hilarious comments...
  - lbotos 8y ago
    Do you read either, right now? The NYT is suuuuuuuper biased. I want liberal freedoms to be allowed to people, but they are pushing an agenda. Really strong. I don't want to subsidize the stories I don't care about. That's the difference. Why should we? The New Yorker is a little better, but it's still "people" focused. I want more macro views. I tried WSJ and Financial Times. Both suffered a bit from "fluff" and I wasn't going to give them $300/yr to feel like I was paying for filler. I'm sad that you think I'm incapable of appreciating newspapers or magazines. I just think that both of those concepts are failing. What's the future look like? <3
    - untog 8y ago
      Here's the bad news: there is no such thing as unbiased news. For example: > I don't want to subsidize the stories I don't care about. You, as the chooser (or editor) of stories are introducing bias already, before any reporting is done.
      - eropple 8y ago
        It almost reads as if the person to whom you reply wants their own personal biases reinforced. Hm.
        a_tractor 8y ago
        It sounds more like a desire for more granular control as a way to access the things in which they are interested without wasting resources or time on things in which they are not. Or you can just call everything "bias" to make a condescending assumption about someone you don't know.
    - 52-6F-62 8y ago
      In spite of some of those comments I’d like to point out there are a lot of great magazines still running US: - The Atlantic - Harpers - Wired still does great long form - Bloomberg Businessweek does as well - Help me out people... Canada: - Maclean’s - the Walrus - Taddle Creek The concepts aren’t failing. They still inspire lengthy discussions and awareness on a wide range of subjects. And they’re available in multiple forms- paper, web, and other digital subscriptions like in house apps or Google or Apple News
  - ummonk 8y ago
    Both are doing fine financially.
minimaxir 8y ago
> kickstarter for investigative journalism. Get decent writers, get people that are willing to pay to hear about what they find, and hope they maintain ethics and integrity. That's been done multiple times, mostly recently with Civil, which combines freelance journalism with the blockchain! https://civil.co/ https://civil.co/ Almost all of them fail due to salary costs. https://www.coindesk.com/civil-startup-token-crypto-ethereum https://www.coindesk.com/civil-startup-token-crypto-ethereum
- jackcosgrove 8y ago
  > freelance journalism with the blockchain! There's nothing new under the sun. Well back to the drawing board...
vertline3 8y ago
I'm glad that you are thinking about it. I don't know if there are any easy solutions.