5 ms·

> This entire editorial is essentially content free. I dream of a world free of editorials, or at least a HN front page without them. Seems an uptick in flame

> This entire editorial is essentially content free. I dream of a world free of editorials, or at least a HN front page without them. Seems an uptick in flame bait editorials as of late.

writepub 7y ago
Internet killed the paper star. Before news went online, good, reliable content was paid for with subscriptions. Going online, paired with the rise of social media changed what it meant for content to be "good" - redefined it to share worthy and click based, monetized mostly by ads. Now, no one, including the famed NYT does good classical journalism - they do what gets them shares and clicks. On closer examination of social media demographics, you can see why news has pivoted to opinion - because millennials share and click more of it, especially the opinions they approve of. A demographic shift in HN user base is also likely the reason for more opinion making it to the top of the charts
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- imgabe 7y ago
  Subscriptions were never the only revenue source for newspapers. They have always had ads.
  - Fnoord 7y ago
    There was a time when subscriptions had little to no ads, and ads were clearly marked as such. Now we have ads all over the place, videos autoplaying, and "influencers" (read: shady salesmen). Now, before "the internet" (read: its commercial, world-wide success), in-depth research was costly, and it could not be copied easily. Newspapers had a reputation to hold up. It was easier to compete on information. Now the competition is much more fierce, and many people make/share news gratis, so it ends up competing with "free" is difficult. As for NYT, there's some good people working there like Runa Sandvik, but I guess it works like every large news organization...
TheSpiceIsLife 7y ago
You can just click Hide and move on.
- mieseratte 7y ago
  There a button to hide all editorials?
  - T3OU-736 7y ago
    Is asking for an [editorial] to be included in the title, similar to how we tend to ask for "year published" data unreasonable?
    - TheSpiceIsLife 7y ago
      That's a good point. The linked page even has Opinion prior to the title. Would it be reasonable to assume the title Don't Trust Facebook with Your Love Life could possibly only be opinion? Would a reasonable person expect to see data-driven research after clicking through?
      - mieseratte 7y ago
        > The linked page even has Opinion prior to the title. Yes, in a font smaller than and above the title that is very light against the background and reasonably easy to miss. > Would it be reasonable to assume the title Don't Trust Facebook with Your Love Life could possibly only be opinion? Would a reasonable person expect to see data-driven research after clicking through? Perhaps it's a clickbait title with real substance, or perhaps a great research piece. The only way to know is to read it.
    - mieseratte 7y ago
      That would be, IMHO, a great addition!
  - TheSpiceIsLife 7y ago
    Sure, why not? In your mind, you can choose not to engage with them, yes. I get that reading is involuntary for literate adults, but I believe it is possible to not engage with the words beyond that.

> This entire editorial is essentially content free. I dream of a world free of editorials, or at least a HN front page without them. Seems an uptick in flame bait editorials as of late.

writepub 7y ago

Internet killed the paper star. Before news went online, good, reliable content was paid for with subscriptions. Going online, paired with the rise of social media changed what it meant for content to be "good" - redefined it to share worthy and click based, monetized mostly by ads. Now, no one, including the famed NYT does good classical journalism - they do what gets them shares and clicks. On closer examination of social media demographics, you can see why news has pivoted to opinion - because millennials share and click more of it, especially the opinions they approve of. A demographic shift in HN user base is also likely the reason for more opinion making it to the top of the charts

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
imgabe 7y ago
Subscriptions were never the only revenue source for newspapers. They have always had ads.
- Fnoord 7y ago
  There was a time when subscriptions had little to no ads, and ads were clearly marked as such. Now we have ads all over the place, videos autoplaying, and "influencers" (read: shady salesmen). Now, before "the internet" (read: its commercial, world-wide success), in-depth research was costly, and it could not be copied easily. Newspapers had a reputation to hold up. It was easier to compete on information. Now the competition is much more fierce, and many people make/share news gratis, so it ends up competing with "free" is difficult. As for NYT, there's some good people working there like Runa Sandvik, but I guess it works like every large news organization...

TheSpiceIsLife 7y ago

You can just click Hide and move on.

mieseratte 7y ago
There a button to hide all editorials?
- T3OU-736 7y ago
  Is asking for an [editorial] to be included in the title, similar to how we tend to ask for "year published" data unreasonable?
  - TheSpiceIsLife 7y ago
    That's a good point. The linked page even has Opinion prior to the title. Would it be reasonable to assume the title Don't Trust Facebook with Your Love Life could possibly only be opinion? Would a reasonable person expect to see data-driven research after clicking through?
    - mieseratte 7y ago
      > The linked page even has Opinion prior to the title. Yes, in a font smaller than and above the title that is very light against the background and reasonably easy to miss. > Would it be reasonable to assume the title Don't Trust Facebook with Your Love Life could possibly only be opinion? Would a reasonable person expect to see data-driven research after clicking through? Perhaps it's a clickbait title with real substance, or perhaps a great research piece. The only way to know is to read it.
  - mieseratte 7y ago
    That would be, IMHO, a great addition!
- TheSpiceIsLife 7y ago
  Sure, why not? In your mind, you can choose not to engage with them, yes. I get that reading is involuntary for literate adults, but I believe it is possible to not engage with the words beyond that.