15 ms·

Regrettably the media needs to publish what gets the most clicks; unfortunately what gets the most clicks these days is partisan stories that gets readers riled

Regrettably the media needs to publish what gets the most clicks; unfortunately what gets the most clicks these days is partisan stories that gets readers riled up. That Panama leak story was also quickly "forgotten" by the MSM.

m0zg 7y ago
I'm sure the journalists would easily manage to make Panama very interesting if their owners didn't tell them to knock it off. Same as with Epstein. Scandal of the century, not discussed at all within 2 weeks, no follow up or investigative journalism of any kind.
- Miner49er 7y ago
  Not sure why you're being downvoted. "Epstein didn't kill himself" is still a meme. That proves there's a market for the Epstein news, IMO. The public absolutely cares. Plus, there's evidence it's being swept under the rug: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/amberjamieson/leaked-footage-abc-jeffrey-epstein https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/amberjamieson/leaked-fo...
  - 52-6F-62 7y ago
    I think because you easily provided the proof they were wrong, as evidenced by an article published by the media about how it's not being addressed publicly to the public's satisfaction. It's too common to treat the media as a homogeneous entity rather than a fractured and variable group.
  - jjeaff 7y ago
    I'm hindsight, it's obvious that an interview like that should have been aired. But it makes total sense not to air something so inflammatory back then with corroborating evidence. It would have sounded pretty outlandish. A girl says she was made a sex slave by a guy named Epstein that didn't really have a public profile and she was forced to sleep with the prince of Wales. As a journalist, you need impeccible sources and evidence to back your story up before you publish something like that.
    - m0zg 7y ago
      >> you need impeccible sources No problem: just hire Fusion GPS to write a "dossier". A source so "impeccible" that you can write about it for years in spite of there being not a shred of truth in it.
    - darrenf 7y ago
      > prince of Wales Andrew is the Duke of York, not Prince of Wales - that's Charles.
      - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
        I'll take the downvotes, but if he's American like I am, we fought pretty hard to not ever have to care about royal distinctions ;) (Although... I didn't know that, I wasn't really sure what Andrew's relation in position was to Charles)
      - jjeaff 7y ago
        I stand corrected. Don't even know the difference. I think every time I hear 'prince' for English royalty, I just automatically think "Prince of Wales.
    - malvosenior 7y ago
      Epstein absolutely had a massive public profile when this story would have aired. When he was first arrested there were many stories about him. There were multiple witnesses and mountains of credible evidence. It was a cover up plain and simple.
    - anigbrowl 7y ago
      Sadly it is not that outlandish. The Duke of York (not Prince of Wales) was famous int eh 1980s for his louche lifestyle and there has been a veritable string of scandals revealing numerous highly respected public figures in the UK to have sordid lives of criminal abuse away from the public gaze over the last 20 years. Of course it would be a tricky story for any journalist, editor, or publisher to handle, not least due to Britain's plaintiff-friendly libel laws. But outlandish? Not at all. 'Outlandish' are things like Prince Andrew's claim that a war injury caused him to completely stop sweating for several years and that this provides a watertight* alibi against his accuser's allegations. * I couldn't help myself
  - aphextim 7y ago
    I enjoy the "Epstein didn't kill himself" meme as it encompasses both ideas. Popular, he was murdered to be silenced from his handlers. Unpopular, he is still alive and living somewhere in secret. However if the meme was changed a little bit, even to "Who killed Epstein?" that would omit the 2nd more unpopular theory altogether.
    - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
      I liked how I saw it explained here. That the Epstein murder is our generations largest admission from the elite class that they not only exist but the rules definitely do not apply to them. I think the Epstein memes are definitely something people of every ideology enjoy.
      - malvosenior 7y ago
        Since the media won't properly cover the story, memes are the only way the public has to keep it from being swept under the rug. > That the Epstein murder is our generations largest admission from the elite class that they not only exist but the rules definitely do not apply to them. Couldn't agree more, thankfully the internet is throwing a wrench into the plan. Even if it's unclear that justice will ultimately be served.
    - selimthegrim 7y ago
      My personal favorite was the same_spiderman.jpg with Spiderman multiplied a few times with the Photoshop clone tool titled "All the billionaires who want to kill Epstein"
- iudqnolq 7y ago
  I found former prosecutor and current defense attorney Ken White's perspective on Epstein's death very interesting. Many of the arguments for a conspiracy are based in a misunderstanding of how awfully our justice system treats people all the time. Being on suicide watch and not being helped is normal. > Ken "Popehat" White (previously) has expanded on his excellent Twitter thread about Jeffrey Epstein's suicide in jail, and just how (shamefully) normal it is for prisoners to die in custody due to indifference, overwork, malfeasance and sadism on the part of prison authorities. > In the Atlantic, White tells the stories of 32 inmates who died (or nearly died) in US custody, under circumstances that are every bit as absurd and negligent as those surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's death. > The point isn't that it's inconceivable that Epstein died as the result of a conspiracy, but the conspiracy theories that say that it has to be a setup because it's so implausible that prison authorities would be so totally useless are thoroughly disconnected from reality. https://boingboing.net/2019/08/13/malice-vs-incompetence.html https://boingboing.net/2019/08/13/malice-vs-incompetence.htm...
  - 1000units 7y ago
    Epstein wasn't a normal prisoner. None of this is particularly relevant.
    - iudqnolq 7y ago
      Ken White addresses this. Even with high profile prisoners, guards face minimal accountability in the US prison system.
      - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
        Did the "malfunctioning" cameras also just not fear accountability?
        iudqnolq 7y ago
        No, the people who were supposed to maintain them didn't bother because they knew they didn't have to fear accountability and they were extremely understaffed and overworked. > A New York Times investigation published last year detailed this practice, under which federal prisons are so strapped for correctional officers that they regularly compel teachers, nurses, secretaries and other support staff members to step in. The practice has grown at some prisons as the Trump administration has curtailed the hiring of correctional officers. > Many of these staff members only receive a few weeks’ training in correctional work, and, while required by contract to serve as substitutes, are often uncomfortable in the roles. > Union officials said that for more than a year officials in Washington had been made aware of a severe staffing shortage at the facility in the wake of a federal hiring freeze. One of the guards on the unit where Mr. Epstein died had been working overtime for five straight days, while the other had been forced to work overtime that day, a union official said. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/12/nyregion/epstein-barr.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/12/nyregion/epstein-barr.htm... Here's another quote from Ken White, the criminal defense attorney I quoted above > Jeffrey Epstein’s name and face are everywhere following his death. Even as an investigation reveals that the Metropolitan Correctional Center, where he died, was terminally short-staffed and relied on untrained guards who failed to monitor him, conspiracy theories persist. Americans who believe in their justice system assert that it is obvious that he was murdered, and that jailers could not possibly be so incompetent, cruel, or indifferent as to let such a high-profile prisoner commit suicide. > Here, to help you evaluate that claim, are 32 short stories about in-custody deaths or near-deaths in America. > These stories don’t mention Jeffrey Epstein, but they are about him. Epstein was incarcerated in the United States of America, and this is how the United States of America, the mightiest and richest nation there is or ever has been, treats incarcerated people. When you say, “There is no way that guards could be so reckless, so indifferent, so malicious as to just let someone as important as Epstein die,” this is how 32 Americans respond. Many, many more could respond in kind.
imglorp 7y ago
An exception is the Netflix movie, "The Laundromat", which deserves wider viewing. It starts off like quirky satire, and then it morphs into actual lampooning of two specific real lawyers by name. They sued to suppress the movie and then lost. A journalist writing about the papers was killed in a car bomb.
- ipython 7y ago
  Exactly this - one wonders why anyone would rationally become a journalist. The pay is crap, the verbal attacks are constant ("fake news", etc), the competition is immense (publish NOW because it's already on Twitter, yet it needs to be 100% factually accurate, so don't forget to triple-check your sources), and oh by the way, if you report on anything of societal value (rooting out corruption, printing stories about drug cartels), you may get yourself killed. Or I could sit quietly, write some code to enable more ad views on tech platform du jour, get paid bank, and complain about journalism on Hacker News with my free time between deploys. Guess which one I would choose?
  - paulddraper 7y ago
    One may wonder the same about many professions like primary/secondary teaching. The answer is that lots of humans like that sort of work.
  - 52-6F-62 7y ago
    Having worked closely with and been friends with journalists: It's because they believe in the work, find it interesting compared to other lines of work, or were inspired by other writers. They don't get into it for the money. They leave the profession or advance in position for the money.
  - mikeyouse 7y ago
    > and oh by the way, if you report on anything of societal value (rooting out corruption, printing stories about drug cartels), you may get yourself killed. Don't forget sued, which prevents many independent journalists from being as aggressive as they should be with the plutocratic class and large corporations in countries where murdering journalists is still verboten. If you don't have the legal resources (and insurance) of a major news organization behind you, good luck writing the type of stories that cause discomfort to the powerful.
glofish 7y ago
Are you blaming the media for getting people what they want? As long as people demand the click-bait only the ones that provide such content will survive. Let's thank our luck that it is not Infowars style clickbait, so some resemblance of sanity still remains. FWIW the Panama papers have had a noticeable impact, especially where it matters most, clawing money back https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Papers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Papers
- zionic 7y ago
  >Are you blaming the media for getting people what they want? Media is not inherently profitable, it's a loss leader whose ultimate product is influence and the manufacture of consent.
- justaguyhere 7y ago
  Not your parent comment and not blaming the media for giving people what they want (especially since the media has trained consumers not to pay for news) That said, this argument of giving people what they want is a weird one. It is like taking the easiest and the laziest route to profit. Also, there is a not insignificant population that still wants facts and not click baity nonsense. But media churns out click baits because it is easier and faster.
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 7y ago
  I've never met anyone that said they want more clickbait. Clickbait is what advertisers want and pay for. The articles are irrelevant, all advertisers care about is brand perception and conversions. Baity headlines exist to get people to click links and then the advertisements take over the job of coercing their ignorant victims into buying useless cheap junk they don't need or want. The headlines themselves are advertisements: 'potus said -shocking thing-' (click here so 'you' have something to say to reinforce 'your' shallow self delusions that 'you're' a savvy, worldly, knowledgeable person instead of talking about what actually matters: [poverty, addiction, gas prices, unemployment, stagnant wage growth, unionization, corruption, health care costs, etc]).
rootsudo 7y ago
Panama Papers/leaks were same story - most of the law firms clients were not Americans.

m0zg 7y ago

I'm sure the journalists would easily manage to make Panama very interesting if their owners didn't tell them to knock it off. Same as with Epstein. Scandal of the century, not discussed at all within 2 weeks, no follow up or investigative journalism of any kind.

Miner49er 7y ago
Not sure why you're being downvoted. "Epstein didn't kill himself" is still a meme. That proves there's a market for the Epstein news, IMO. The public absolutely cares. Plus, there's evidence it's being swept under the rug: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/amberjamieson/leaked-footage-abc-jeffrey-epstein https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/amberjamieson/leaked-fo...
- 52-6F-62 7y ago
  I think because you easily provided the proof they were wrong, as evidenced by an article published by the media about how it's not being addressed publicly to the public's satisfaction. It's too common to treat the media as a homogeneous entity rather than a fractured and variable group.
- jjeaff 7y ago
  I'm hindsight, it's obvious that an interview like that should have been aired. But it makes total sense not to air something so inflammatory back then with corroborating evidence. It would have sounded pretty outlandish. A girl says she was made a sex slave by a guy named Epstein that didn't really have a public profile and she was forced to sleep with the prince of Wales. As a journalist, you need impeccible sources and evidence to back your story up before you publish something like that.
  - m0zg 7y ago
    >> you need impeccible sources No problem: just hire Fusion GPS to write a "dossier". A source so "impeccible" that you can write about it for years in spite of there being not a shred of truth in it.
  - darrenf 7y ago
    > prince of Wales Andrew is the Duke of York, not Prince of Wales - that's Charles.
    - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
      I'll take the downvotes, but if he's American like I am, we fought pretty hard to not ever have to care about royal distinctions ;) (Although... I didn't know that, I wasn't really sure what Andrew's relation in position was to Charles)
    - jjeaff 7y ago
      I stand corrected. Don't even know the difference. I think every time I hear 'prince' for English royalty, I just automatically think "Prince of Wales.
  - malvosenior 7y ago
    Epstein absolutely had a massive public profile when this story would have aired. When he was first arrested there were many stories about him. There were multiple witnesses and mountains of credible evidence. It was a cover up plain and simple.
  - anigbrowl 7y ago
    Sadly it is not that outlandish. The Duke of York (not Prince of Wales) was famous int eh 1980s for his louche lifestyle and there has been a veritable string of scandals revealing numerous highly respected public figures in the UK to have sordid lives of criminal abuse away from the public gaze over the last 20 years. Of course it would be a tricky story for any journalist, editor, or publisher to handle, not least due to Britain's plaintiff-friendly libel laws. But outlandish? Not at all. 'Outlandish' are things like Prince Andrew's claim that a war injury caused him to completely stop sweating for several years and that this provides a watertight* alibi against his accuser's allegations. * I couldn't help myself
- aphextim 7y ago
  I enjoy the "Epstein didn't kill himself" meme as it encompasses both ideas. Popular, he was murdered to be silenced from his handlers. Unpopular, he is still alive and living somewhere in secret. However if the meme was changed a little bit, even to "Who killed Epstein?" that would omit the 2nd more unpopular theory altogether.
  - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
    I liked how I saw it explained here. That the Epstein murder is our generations largest admission from the elite class that they not only exist but the rules definitely do not apply to them. I think the Epstein memes are definitely something people of every ideology enjoy.
    - malvosenior 7y ago
      Since the media won't properly cover the story, memes are the only way the public has to keep it from being swept under the rug. > That the Epstein murder is our generations largest admission from the elite class that they not only exist but the rules definitely do not apply to them. Couldn't agree more, thankfully the internet is throwing a wrench into the plan. Even if it's unclear that justice will ultimately be served.
  - selimthegrim 7y ago
    My personal favorite was the same_spiderman.jpg with Spiderman multiplied a few times with the Photoshop clone tool titled "All the billionaires who want to kill Epstein"
iudqnolq 7y ago
I found former prosecutor and current defense attorney Ken White's perspective on Epstein's death very interesting. Many of the arguments for a conspiracy are based in a misunderstanding of how awfully our justice system treats people all the time. Being on suicide watch and not being helped is normal. > Ken "Popehat" White (previously) has expanded on his excellent Twitter thread about Jeffrey Epstein's suicide in jail, and just how (shamefully) normal it is for prisoners to die in custody due to indifference, overwork, malfeasance and sadism on the part of prison authorities. > In the Atlantic, White tells the stories of 32 inmates who died (or nearly died) in US custody, under circumstances that are every bit as absurd and negligent as those surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's death. > The point isn't that it's inconceivable that Epstein died as the result of a conspiracy, but the conspiracy theories that say that it has to be a setup because it's so implausible that prison authorities would be so totally useless are thoroughly disconnected from reality. https://boingboing.net/2019/08/13/malice-vs-incompetence.html https://boingboing.net/2019/08/13/malice-vs-incompetence.htm...
- 1000units 7y ago
  Epstein wasn't a normal prisoner. None of this is particularly relevant.
  - iudqnolq 7y ago
    Ken White addresses this. Even with high profile prisoners, guards face minimal accountability in the US prison system.
    - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
      Did the "malfunctioning" cameras also just not fear accountability?
      - iudqnolq 7y ago
        No, the people who were supposed to maintain them didn't bother because they knew they didn't have to fear accountability and they were extremely understaffed and overworked. > A New York Times investigation published last year detailed this practice, under which federal prisons are so strapped for correctional officers that they regularly compel teachers, nurses, secretaries and other support staff members to step in. The practice has grown at some prisons as the Trump administration has curtailed the hiring of correctional officers. > Many of these staff members only receive a few weeks’ training in correctional work, and, while required by contract to serve as substitutes, are often uncomfortable in the roles. > Union officials said that for more than a year officials in Washington had been made aware of a severe staffing shortage at the facility in the wake of a federal hiring freeze. One of the guards on the unit where Mr. Epstein died had been working overtime for five straight days, while the other had been forced to work overtime that day, a union official said. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/12/nyregion/epstein-barr.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/12/nyregion/epstein-barr.htm... Here's another quote from Ken White, the criminal defense attorney I quoted above > Jeffrey Epstein’s name and face are everywhere following his death. Even as an investigation reveals that the Metropolitan Correctional Center, where he died, was terminally short-staffed and relied on untrained guards who failed to monitor him, conspiracy theories persist. Americans who believe in their justice system assert that it is obvious that he was murdered, and that jailers could not possibly be so incompetent, cruel, or indifferent as to let such a high-profile prisoner commit suicide. > Here, to help you evaluate that claim, are 32 short stories about in-custody deaths or near-deaths in America. > These stories don’t mention Jeffrey Epstein, but they are about him. Epstein was incarcerated in the United States of America, and this is how the United States of America, the mightiest and richest nation there is or ever has been, treats incarcerated people. When you say, “There is no way that guards could be so reckless, so indifferent, so malicious as to just let someone as important as Epstein die,” this is how 32 Americans respond. Many, many more could respond in kind.

imglorp 7y ago

An exception is the Netflix movie, "The Laundromat", which deserves wider viewing. It starts off like quirky satire, and then it morphs into actual lampooning of two specific real lawyers by name. They sued to suppress the movie and then lost. A journalist writing about the papers was killed in a car bomb.

ipython 7y ago
Exactly this - one wonders why anyone would rationally become a journalist. The pay is crap, the verbal attacks are constant ("fake news", etc), the competition is immense (publish NOW because it's already on Twitter, yet it needs to be 100% factually accurate, so don't forget to triple-check your sources), and oh by the way, if you report on anything of societal value (rooting out corruption, printing stories about drug cartels), you may get yourself killed. Or I could sit quietly, write some code to enable more ad views on tech platform du jour, get paid bank, and complain about journalism on Hacker News with my free time between deploys. Guess which one I would choose?
- paulddraper 7y ago
  One may wonder the same about many professions like primary/secondary teaching. The answer is that lots of humans like that sort of work.
- 52-6F-62 7y ago
  Having worked closely with and been friends with journalists: It's because they believe in the work, find it interesting compared to other lines of work, or were inspired by other writers. They don't get into it for the money. They leave the profession or advance in position for the money.
- mikeyouse 7y ago
  > and oh by the way, if you report on anything of societal value (rooting out corruption, printing stories about drug cartels), you may get yourself killed. Don't forget sued, which prevents many independent journalists from being as aggressive as they should be with the plutocratic class and large corporations in countries where murdering journalists is still verboten. If you don't have the legal resources (and insurance) of a major news organization behind you, good luck writing the type of stories that cause discomfort to the powerful.

glofish 7y ago

Are you blaming the media for getting people what they want? As long as people demand the click-bait only the ones that provide such content will survive. Let's thank our luck that it is not Infowars style clickbait, so some resemblance of sanity still remains. FWIW the Panama papers have had a noticeable impact, especially where it matters most, clawing money back https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Papers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Papers

zionic 7y ago
>Are you blaming the media for getting people what they want? Media is not inherently profitable, it's a loss leader whose ultimate product is influence and the manufacture of consent.
justaguyhere 7y ago
Not your parent comment and not blaming the media for giving people what they want (especially since the media has trained consumers not to pay for news) That said, this argument of giving people what they want is a weird one. It is like taking the easiest and the laziest route to profit. Also, there is a not insignificant population that still wants facts and not click baity nonsense. But media churns out click baits because it is easier and faster.
Red_Leaves_Flyy 7y ago
I've never met anyone that said they want more clickbait. Clickbait is what advertisers want and pay for. The articles are irrelevant, all advertisers care about is brand perception and conversions. Baity headlines exist to get people to click links and then the advertisements take over the job of coercing their ignorant victims into buying useless cheap junk they don't need or want. The headlines themselves are advertisements: 'potus said -shocking thing-' (click here so 'you' have something to say to reinforce 'your' shallow self delusions that 'you're' a savvy, worldly, knowledgeable person instead of talking about what actually matters: [poverty, addiction, gas prices, unemployment, stagnant wage growth, unionization, corruption, health care costs, etc]).

rootsudo 7y ago

Panama Papers/leaks were same story - most of the law firms clients were not Americans.