3 ms·

A "random selection of the latest news" is neither well-defined, nor a useful concept: (1) A red car just passed outside my window. (2) Tensions in Kashmir ar

A "random selection of the latest news" is neither well-defined, nor a useful concept: (1) A red car just passed outside my window. (2) Tensions in Kashmir are easing. Both statements are true. They weren't true five days ago. Therefore they are "news". I fail to see why it's the fault of "the quest for profit" when newspapers will tend to give the second news higher billing. Profit-driven (and also non-profit) publishers have a motive to publish stories that "people want to read", yes. But there's a difference between "want to read" and "feel-good news". I'm no fan of global warming, and yet the pesky newspaper I subscribe to insist on reminding me that it exists. Restaurants and supermarkets are just as, or even more, profit-driven. But that has not lead to a monopolisation of nutrition at the low quality end of the spectrum that appeals to our base instincts: McDonald's exists, just as tabloids do. But spinach or the New York Times steadfastly refuse to disappear.

msla 8y ago
And even if you select for news which might affect a large portion of the world, you run into issues of which stories to present first, which ones to go in-depth on, and other issues of news judgment that any paper or TV station made. Back in the Old Days, newsrooms were full of people who debated what the news was, in terms of which stories to run, which ones were headlines, and which ones were below the fold on the second page. Those people were, let us be clear, straight White men who either were cis and hetero or were able to fake it well enough to have a professional career. Most of them were Christian, and if you go back far enough in some regions that effectively excludes Catholics. They were news judgment, in terms of the news sources which mattered. They were the gatekeepers. So we have different gatekeepers now. This is only deeply disturbing if you thought the gatekeepers never existed, or went away entirely.

msla 8y ago

And even if you select for news which might affect a large portion of the world, you run into issues of which stories to present first, which ones to go in-depth on, and other issues of news judgment that any paper or TV station made. Back in the Old Days, newsrooms were full of people who debated what the news was, in terms of which stories to run, which ones were headlines, and which ones were below the fold on the second page. Those people were, let us be clear, straight White men who either were cis and hetero or were able to fake it well enough to have a professional career. Most of them were Christian, and if you go back far enough in some regions that effectively excludes Catholics. They were news judgment, in terms of the news sources which mattered. They were the gatekeepers. So we have different gatekeepers now. This is only deeply disturbing if you thought the gatekeepers never existed, or went away entirely.