5 ms·

This is scary because it translates to not just centralization of news sources but also centralization of power and wealth in general. Big news publishers get t

This is scary because it translates to not just centralization of news sources but also centralization of power and wealth in general. Big news publishers get their money mostly from corporations. I think I prefer to live in a world with fake news than one where the elites curate everything we learn. The world has always had conmen, charlatans, snake-oil salesmen and fake news; in small quantities, they are essential to make sure that people keep questioning everything. Fake news is like a vaccine which protects us against a zombie apocalypse. Most news cannot be scientifically proven to be true; so it doesn't make sense that we should all believe it just because it's popular. Popular news sources are more likely to be true but they are also a lot more dangerous if they're not. Given enough time, these big news sources will be corrupted.

donedealomg 8y ago
Yeah, imagine a that somebody wins the elections again that the big guys have no control over.
adventured 8y ago
> Big news publishers get their money mostly from corporations. That depends on the publisher. Subscription revenue is now 2/3 of the NY Times business as one major example. There are few larger news publishers in the US than the NY Times. As recently as 2005, 2/3 of their revenue came from advertising. That ratio has inverted. The NYT subscribers are on average 30x to 40x more lucrative than the ad-only readers. The Wall Street Journal has been able to accomplish a similar, gradual build-out of their online subscription business. The Washington Post is pursuing the same model and will likely reach a similar balance on revenue over time. A good subscription business will always beat a good ad business, unless you're Google or Facebook (in which case their hyperscale enables them to monetize drastically more users than they could with subscriptions). No coincidence the NY Times has rebuilt their business and their stock is approaching ~15 year highs. Meanwhile, ad businesses like BuzzFeed are in collapse mode (BuzzFeed's ad-based ARPU is less than 1% of what the NY Times derives from its subscribers).
- katzgrau 8y ago
  There's no doubt that a publisher who can convince its readers to subscribe should absolutely do that. The problem is that outside of NYT, WaPo, and WSJ and niche or special interest publications, subscription rates are far, far lower. The accessibility and ubiquity of the big names are creating a winner take all scenario. The buzzfeeds, along with traditional regional and local newspaper media, are forced to fight for national advertising income which is becoming less lucrative and more obtrusive by the year. Advertisers have all of the leverage. Long story short, most for-profit general news media media is in a bad place with no way out.
  - C1sc0cat 8y ago
    Convince its readers boss to pay for a sub I think you meant like the FT in the UK a lot of subs maybe for City professionals
  - hopler 8y ago
    NYTimes (and others) buys small journalism orgs/individuals that it likes. A small journalism outfit is like a startup that can get an exit via acquihire. Economy of scale is a law of nature.
pjc50 8y ago
Fake news is the zombie apocalypse. It's cheaper to produce than real news, and so there's likely to be much more of it drowning out the real news. It's also useful to corrupt people's belief in the possibility of getting accurate news. The public retreat to partisan news sources if there is no source in the middle that can be trusted. The quality of decision-making goes down and it becomes easier for real corruption to flourish once everyone is accused of corruption by fake news.
- marcosdumay 8y ago
  > It's also useful to corrupt people's belief in the possibility of getting accurate news. That's why the GP called them a vaccine. To be a vaccine, first it has to be a virus. There are some odd happening recently that people attribute to fake news (usually with weak evidence, and way too many competing possibilities that they ignore), but I don't think anybody can classify the current world as apocalyptic.
  - pjc50 8y ago
    Funny they should use that analogy, since one of the achievements of "fake news" in the broad sense has been eroding people's belief in vaccination. Perhaps not apocalyptic yet but undoubtedly getting people killed.
    - throwaway8879 8y ago
      Sure, but getting less people killed than ever before.
    - pessimizer 8y ago
      > one of the achievements of "fake news" in the broad sense has been eroding people's belief in vaccination. That's an unusual way to describe The Lancet, who are responsible for inflicting Wakefield's bullshit on the world, and taking an eternity to retract it.
      - Angostura 8y ago
Zecar 8y ago
> Popular news sources are more likely to be true. Why on Earth would you believe such a thing? That's utterly ludicrous.
porpoisely 8y ago
A world where the elites curate everything we learn is the world of fake news. We are living in a fake news world and have been since forever.
hopefulengineer 8y ago
>Given enough time, these big news sources will be corrupted already happened, the majority of the media we see is controlled by 6 massive international conglomerates who value profit over actual news Then you have billionaires buying up their own propaganda operations Warren Buffet owns over 30 newspapers Bezos owns the Washington Post The New York Times largest shareholder is Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim, a man who makes billions off illegal immigrants remittances back to Mexico. He owns around 17% of the company and loaned them 250 million in 2009. Do they disclose that conflict whenever they talk about Trump?
ajmurmann 8y ago
What do you mean by "fake news"? Are you using it on the original sense that described articles by people in the country of Georgia that literally were making up stories that would get clicks and ad revenue or in the newer sense that Trump has corrupted it with, meaning news he disagrees with/dishes but still might be correct?
CamperBob2 8y ago
Fake news is like a vaccine which protects us against a zombie apocalypse. That's what I would've said a couple of years ago. Now it's clear that fake news is more like a vaccine that really does cause autism.

donedealomg 8y ago

Yeah, imagine a that somebody wins the elections again that the big guys have no control over.

adventured 8y ago

> Big news publishers get their money mostly from corporations. That depends on the publisher. Subscription revenue is now 2/3 of the NY Times business as one major example. There are few larger news publishers in the US than the NY Times. As recently as 2005, 2/3 of their revenue came from advertising. That ratio has inverted. The NYT subscribers are on average 30x to 40x more lucrative than the ad-only readers. The Wall Street Journal has been able to accomplish a similar, gradual build-out of their online subscription business. The Washington Post is pursuing the same model and will likely reach a similar balance on revenue over time. A good subscription business will always beat a good ad business, unless you're Google or Facebook (in which case their hyperscale enables them to monetize drastically more users than they could with subscriptions). No coincidence the NY Times has rebuilt their business and their stock is approaching ~15 year highs. Meanwhile, ad businesses like BuzzFeed are in collapse mode (BuzzFeed's ad-based ARPU is less than 1% of what the NY Times derives from its subscribers).

katzgrau 8y ago
There's no doubt that a publisher who can convince its readers to subscribe should absolutely do that. The problem is that outside of NYT, WaPo, and WSJ and niche or special interest publications, subscription rates are far, far lower. The accessibility and ubiquity of the big names are creating a winner take all scenario. The buzzfeeds, along with traditional regional and local newspaper media, are forced to fight for national advertising income which is becoming less lucrative and more obtrusive by the year. Advertisers have all of the leverage. Long story short, most for-profit general news media media is in a bad place with no way out.
- C1sc0cat 8y ago
  Convince its readers boss to pay for a sub I think you meant like the FT in the UK a lot of subs maybe for City professionals
- hopler 8y ago
  NYTimes (and others) buys small journalism orgs/individuals that it likes. A small journalism outfit is like a startup that can get an exit via acquihire. Economy of scale is a law of nature.

pjc50 8y ago

Fake news is the zombie apocalypse. It's cheaper to produce than real news, and so there's likely to be much more of it drowning out the real news. It's also useful to corrupt people's belief in the possibility of getting accurate news. The public retreat to partisan news sources if there is no source in the middle that can be trusted. The quality of decision-making goes down and it becomes easier for real corruption to flourish once everyone is accused of corruption by fake news.

marcosdumay 8y ago
> It's also useful to corrupt people's belief in the possibility of getting accurate news. That's why the GP called them a vaccine. To be a vaccine, first it has to be a virus. There are some odd happening recently that people attribute to fake news (usually with weak evidence, and way too many competing possibilities that they ignore), but I don't think anybody can classify the current world as apocalyptic.
- pjc50 8y ago
  Funny they should use that analogy, since one of the achievements of "fake news" in the broad sense has been eroding people's belief in vaccination. Perhaps not apocalyptic yet but undoubtedly getting people killed.
  - throwaway8879 8y ago
    Sure, but getting less people killed than ever before.
  - pessimizer 8y ago
    > one of the achievements of "fake news" in the broad sense has been eroding people's belief in vaccination. That's an unusual way to describe The Lancet, who are responsible for inflicting Wakefield's bullshit on the world, and taking an eternity to retract it.
    - Angostura 8y ago

Zecar 8y ago

> Popular news sources are more likely to be true. Why on Earth would you believe such a thing? That's utterly ludicrous.

porpoisely 8y ago

A world where the elites curate everything we learn is the world of fake news. We are living in a fake news world and have been since forever.

hopefulengineer 8y ago

>Given enough time, these big news sources will be corrupted already happened, the majority of the media we see is controlled by 6 massive international conglomerates who value profit over actual news Then you have billionaires buying up their own propaganda operations Warren Buffet owns over 30 newspapers Bezos owns the Washington Post The New York Times largest shareholder is Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim, a man who makes billions off illegal immigrants remittances back to Mexico. He owns around 17% of the company and loaned them 250 million in 2009. Do they disclose that conflict whenever they talk about Trump?

ajmurmann 8y ago

What do you mean by "fake news"? Are you using it on the original sense that described articles by people in the country of Georgia that literally were making up stories that would get clicks and ad revenue or in the newer sense that Trump has corrupted it with, meaning news he disagrees with/dishes but still might be correct?

CamperBob2 8y ago

Fake news is like a vaccine which protects us against a zombie apocalypse. That's what I would've said a couple of years ago. Now it's clear that fake news is more like a vaccine that really does cause autism.