4 ms·

Sorry, but your original comment said “you have no doubt” that you (or anyone) could get a bunch of software engineers and within a day create a functioning new

by danso 7y ago

Sorry, but your original comment said “you have no doubt” that you (or anyone) could get a bunch of software engineers and within a day create a functioning news org. But now it sounds like you have no core concept about what journalism is? edit: just to expand on this, I'm declining to respond to your overly broad request, in the same way that I would decline to respond to someone who, after taking 10 minutes to roll out a beautiful SquareSpace template, mocks the tens of thousands of computer science grads who fail to be even 0.001% the success that dropout Mark Zuckerberg is. Your original comment, without further clarification on your part, carries an amount of arrogance and likely ignorance that doesn't feel worthwhile to engage with in good faith. But for starters, you make a major categorical error by conflating "functioning news organization" – an entity that requires social and political power, entrepreneurship, and business acumen – as something that only requires a bunch of people (journalists, or not) getting together and doing whatever you think "journalism" is. No non-foolish journalist would ever argue that a roomful of journalists could produce a "functioning news organization" in a day or even in a month. And recent counter-examples to your belief are plentiful. If it were possible to throw a bunch of software devs into a room to create a "functional news organization", then Facebook would not be throwing millions [0] at existing news orgs for the rights to display article headlines and previews, when it could be using the hundreds/thousands of not-fully-utilized software engineers it already has in-house to produce news, if your hypothesis were based in reality. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/08/technology/facebook-news-publishers.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/08/technology/facebook-news-...

ravenstine 7y ago
> edit: just to expand on this, I'm declining to respond to your overly broad request, in the same way that I would decline to respond to someone who, after taking 10 minutes to roll out a beautiful SquareSpace template, mocks the tens of thousands of computer science grads who fail to be even 0.001% the success that dropout Mark Zuckerberg is. No, you're declining to reply because you don't know anything about journalism and are talking out your rear end. See? Anyone can play your ridiculous game. > Your original comment, without further clarification on your part, carries an amount of arrogance and likely ignorance that doesn't feel worthwhile to engage with in good faith. What on earth are you talking about? You claimed to know something that I don't, and asking you to provide something more specific besides just saying I'm "ignorant" is perfectly reasonable. All you've done is gotten pissed at the fact that I don't see journalism as being as rigorous or valuable a profession as you believe they are, and you're reading my intent through that lens. Would you believe me if I told you that I am genuinely trying to describe the situation in an honest way? > And recent counter-examples to your belief are plentiful. Can you name a single one? Surely, you are much less ignorant about this than I am. > If it were possible to throw a bunch of software devs into a room to create a "functional news organization", then Facebook would not be throwing millions [0] at existing news orgs for the rights to display article headlines and previews First of all, I never said that software engineers + wordpress = The New York Times. Everyone seems to forget that there are tons of news organizations out there that aren't even a 10th of the scale of big-name newsrooms. Second, Facebook paid those organizations as an incentive because publishing articles in Facebook potentially threatens their ad revenue because it could draw users away from their own websites. Facebook wants people to stay within Facebook and not navigate away when they look at a story, and they have the money to make that happen. Lots of people read NYT, WaPo, etc. It's an audience Facebook wants to keep. This has nothing to do with how monetarily valuable journalism is or how much talent it requires. These organizations were selling their audience to Facebook.

by danso 7y ago

ravenstine 7y ago

> edit: just to expand on this, I'm declining to respond to your overly broad request, in the same way that I would decline to respond to someone who, after taking 10 minutes to roll out a beautiful SquareSpace template, mocks the tens of thousands of computer science grads who fail to be even 0.001% the success that dropout Mark Zuckerberg is. No, you're declining to reply because you don't know anything about journalism and are talking out your rear end. See? Anyone can play your ridiculous game. > Your original comment, without further clarification on your part, carries an amount of arrogance and likely ignorance that doesn't feel worthwhile to engage with in good faith. What on earth are you talking about? You claimed to know something that I don't, and asking you to provide something more specific besides just saying I'm "ignorant" is perfectly reasonable. All you've done is gotten pissed at the fact that I don't see journalism as being as rigorous or valuable a profession as you believe they are, and you're reading my intent through that lens. Would you believe me if I told you that I am genuinely trying to describe the situation in an honest way? > And recent counter-examples to your belief are plentiful. Can you name a single one? Surely, you are much less ignorant about this than I am. > If it were possible to throw a bunch of software devs into a room to create a "functional news organization", then Facebook would not be throwing millions [0] at existing news orgs for the rights to display article headlines and previews First of all, I never said that software engineers + wordpress = The New York Times. Everyone seems to forget that there are tons of news organizations out there that aren't even a 10th of the scale of big-name newsrooms. Second, Facebook paid those organizations as an incentive because publishing articles in Facebook potentially threatens their ad revenue because it could draw users away from their own websites. Facebook wants people to stay within Facebook and not navigate away when they look at a story, and they have the money to make that happen. Lots of people read NYT, WaPo, etc. It's an audience Facebook wants to keep. This has nothing to do with how monetarily valuable journalism is or how much talent it requires. These organizations were selling their audience to Facebook.