6 ms·

First, Google, a surveillance machine, kills journalism by monopolizing the ad business. And now it pretends to support journalism through its handouts. Nice so

by mudil 8y ago

First, Google, a surveillance machine, kills journalism by monopolizing the ad business. And now it pretends to support journalism through its handouts. Nice society we are building, folks.

greymeister 8y ago
God creates dinosaurs, god destroys dinosaurs, god creates man, man destroys god, man creates dinosaurs.
cromwellian 8y ago
Well, it's like saying Autos killed Horse and Buggies, and auto manufacturers contributing to horse farms means they are bad people. How likely was it that local news was going to survive the digital transition as is, when suddenly, people who never ventured more than 25 miles from where they are born, and mostly obtained news by paper delivery or local TV, can suddenly access the sum total of human knowledge and any news all over the world? Suddenly your local paper, which had "default" access set almost like a default app on an OS, is no longer the default because the barrier to accessing everything else is way lower. The writing was on the wall, in the same way that streaming killed optical media and optical media killed LPs. Or in the same way that e-commerce is killing retail once logistics gets cheap enough to make delivery cheaper than buying in store. This was going to happen inevitably.
- freehunter 8y ago
  But the New York Times doesn’t cover my local city council, which has a way bigger impact on my daily life than national news does. Without a more local paper, people become disconnected from the own town. It’s very much unlike horses vs cars because in this analogy even if the buggie makers go out of business, people are still riding horses.
  - cromwellian 8y ago
    Might I suggest that states and localities fund local media reporting on government via tax and give it to organizations like CPB/NPR/CBS/CSPAN?
- stevholt 8y ago
  It's not about jobs, it's about building and sustaining communities. Using inevitably as justification is not a good way to absolve responsibility.
  - cromwellian 8y ago
    If you live in a very sparse rural community without a large enough audience willing to pay for hyperlocal news, why is it the responsibility of others to make this viable? Why does the US celebrate rural living such that people think it’s their god given right to have all of the same amenities someone in a large metro area have with its higher density in an economically untenable context? I’ll grant you it’s sad when small towns die, but why is it the responsibility of everyone else to insure these towns are viable? Things change, industries change, and often, people have to adapt as a result.
- zoul 8y ago
  The writing was on the wall, in the same way that streaming killed optical media and optical media killed LPs. Or in the same way that e-commerce is killing retail once logistics gets cheap enough to make delivery cheaper than buying in store. This is a completely different matter. Here you are giving examples of services getting replaced by a better competitor. How does Google or Facebook improve on local journalism? They have just destroyed an important public service with no viable replacement in sight. The situation has maybe improved for the advertisers, but the public has lost a big time.
  - cromwellian 8y ago
    They didn’t destroy them, digital media and the internet did by making a vast number of information channels suddenly available. In the same way that 500 cable channels and 24/7 news networks hurt local TV news. When I grew up my TV reception could only turn into 3 TV stations, and we had one real paper: the Baltimore sun. There was no choice but to consume them by sheer convenience. As soon as cable and internet virtually eliminated barriers due to geographic distance the dominance of local media with a guaranteed audience was ended. Even without search, the internet put national And global newspapers at the touch of individuals. The idea that exposing your local outlet to the ease of accessing 1000 competitors wouldn’t have hurt them is dubious.
    - zoul 8y ago
      FWIW, I have been running a local newspaper (both digital and print) for the last five years. There is _no_ competition to speak of whatsoever. There are papers allright, but practically none of them make serious journalism, they just do whatever it takes to stay afloat. That’s the crux of the issue – there is fierce competition in the ad industry where almost everything is swallowed by the big players, but they don’t deliver the service the local media did. At all. I would love to be superseded by a better newspaper, but that’s not what’s happening.
    - CM30 8y ago
      Yeah, this is pretty much it in a nutshell. Journalism as a business only really worked when there were significant gatekeepers to publishing information on a large scale, where competition was limited and where these publications were the best place for advertisers to advertise their wares. That's not coming back. Any journalists who think the 'old world' is going to survive in the internet era are flat out delusional. You cannot undo time and technology, and you cannot try and freeze society at the turn of the millennium. Hence the solution isn't to throw money at all these sites and publications, especially given they almost certainly won't be sustainable in today's economic climate. It's to find new ways of distributing information for a new generation, one that doesn't involve ads, subscriptions or newsrooms full of wriers.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

by mudil 8y ago

First, Google, a surveillance machine, kills journalism by monopolizing the ad business. And now it pretends to support journalism through its handouts. Nice society we are building, folks.

greymeister 8y ago

God creates dinosaurs, god destroys dinosaurs, god creates man, man destroys god, man creates dinosaurs.

cromwellian 8y ago

Well, it's like saying Autos killed Horse and Buggies, and auto manufacturers contributing to horse farms means they are bad people. How likely was it that local news was going to survive the digital transition as is, when suddenly, people who never ventured more than 25 miles from where they are born, and mostly obtained news by paper delivery or local TV, can suddenly access the sum total of human knowledge and any news all over the world? Suddenly your local paper, which had "default" access set almost like a default app on an OS, is no longer the default because the barrier to accessing everything else is way lower. The writing was on the wall, in the same way that streaming killed optical media and optical media killed LPs. Or in the same way that e-commerce is killing retail once logistics gets cheap enough to make delivery cheaper than buying in store. This was going to happen inevitably.

freehunter 8y ago
But the New York Times doesn’t cover my local city council, which has a way bigger impact on my daily life than national news does. Without a more local paper, people become disconnected from the own town. It’s very much unlike horses vs cars because in this analogy even if the buggie makers go out of business, people are still riding horses.
- cromwellian 8y ago
  Might I suggest that states and localities fund local media reporting on government via tax and give it to organizations like CPB/NPR/CBS/CSPAN?
stevholt 8y ago
It's not about jobs, it's about building and sustaining communities. Using inevitably as justification is not a good way to absolve responsibility.
- cromwellian 8y ago
  If you live in a very sparse rural community without a large enough audience willing to pay for hyperlocal news, why is it the responsibility of others to make this viable? Why does the US celebrate rural living such that people think it’s their god given right to have all of the same amenities someone in a large metro area have with its higher density in an economically untenable context? I’ll grant you it’s sad when small towns die, but why is it the responsibility of everyone else to insure these towns are viable? Things change, industries change, and often, people have to adapt as a result.
zoul 8y ago
The writing was on the wall, in the same way that streaming killed optical media and optical media killed LPs. Or in the same way that e-commerce is killing retail once logistics gets cheap enough to make delivery cheaper than buying in store. This is a completely different matter. Here you are giving examples of services getting replaced by a better competitor. How does Google or Facebook improve on local journalism? They have just destroyed an important public service with no viable replacement in sight. The situation has maybe improved for the advertisers, but the public has lost a big time.
- cromwellian 8y ago
  They didn’t destroy them, digital media and the internet did by making a vast number of information channels suddenly available. In the same way that 500 cable channels and 24/7 news networks hurt local TV news. When I grew up my TV reception could only turn into 3 TV stations, and we had one real paper: the Baltimore sun. There was no choice but to consume them by sheer convenience. As soon as cable and internet virtually eliminated barriers due to geographic distance the dominance of local media with a guaranteed audience was ended. Even without search, the internet put national And global newspapers at the touch of individuals. The idea that exposing your local outlet to the ease of accessing 1000 competitors wouldn’t have hurt them is dubious.
  - zoul 8y ago
    FWIW, I have been running a local newspaper (both digital and print) for the last five years. There is _no_ competition to speak of whatsoever. There are papers allright, but practically none of them make serious journalism, they just do whatever it takes to stay afloat. That’s the crux of the issue – there is fierce competition in the ad industry where almost everything is swallowed by the big players, but they don’t deliver the service the local media did. At all. I would love to be superseded by a better newspaper, but that’s not what’s happening.
  - CM30 8y ago
    Yeah, this is pretty much it in a nutshell. Journalism as a business only really worked when there were significant gatekeepers to publishing information on a large scale, where competition was limited and where these publications were the best place for advertisers to advertise their wares. That's not coming back. Any journalists who think the 'old world' is going to survive in the internet era are flat out delusional. You cannot undo time and technology, and you cannot try and freeze society at the turn of the millennium. Hence the solution isn't to throw money at all these sites and publications, especially given they almost certainly won't be sustainable in today's economic climate. It's to find new ways of distributing information for a new generation, one that doesn't involve ads, subscriptions or newsrooms full of wriers.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]