4 ms·

This just begs the question. People concerned about the loss of local news aren't concerned about the reallocation of attentional resources and eyeball-seconds

This just begs the question. People concerned about the loss of local news aren't concerned about the reallocation of attentional resources and eyeball-seconds. They don't agree that the social value of local news is equal to the market value.

SllX 7y ago
Where exactly are you drawing the distinction between the social and market value? The local news is just another type of information, and if you don’t spend your money on it, you’re at least spending your time. Near as I can tell, the people who are concerned about the loss of local news are concerning themselves with how people are choosing to not spend their time. The people most concerned with this are the people whose jobs are on the line or lost because of how people weren’t spending their time and/or money, and due to the nature of their jobs, are or have been in the position to complain in a very vocal and visible manner.
- abathur 7y ago
  Sorry for the slow response. Came down with a cold and haven't felt very lucid. I'm just talking about positive externalities: anywhere the social value created by producing + consuming local news exceeds the social cost of producing + consuming it. It seems like you're focused more on the consumption side (i.e., pearl-clutching over whether people spend their time/money consuming local news, or whatever they spend time/money on instead). I wouldn't say that the consumption side is irrelevant, but I'm more concerned about the production side. For example: The social value of reporting out a local corruption scandal isn't necessarily linked to the market value of the associated column-inches. The lion's share of the social value comes from rooting out the corruption. Try flipping it around. If a news outlet had enough metrics on past scandal coverage to know that breaking it won't increase profits, should they make a shrewd decision to accept payment from one or more participants in the scandal to bury the story, save the time on reporting it out, and run a wire piece in its place?

SllX 7y ago

Where exactly are you drawing the distinction between the social and market value? The local news is just another type of information, and if you don’t spend your money on it, you’re at least spending your time. Near as I can tell, the people who are concerned about the loss of local news are concerning themselves with how people are choosing to not spend their time. The people most concerned with this are the people whose jobs are on the line or lost because of how people weren’t spending their time and/or money, and due to the nature of their jobs, are or have been in the position to complain in a very vocal and visible manner.

abathur 7y ago
Sorry for the slow response. Came down with a cold and haven't felt very lucid. I'm just talking about positive externalities: anywhere the social value created by producing + consuming local news exceeds the social cost of producing + consuming it. It seems like you're focused more on the consumption side (i.e., pearl-clutching over whether people spend their time/money consuming local news, or whatever they spend time/money on instead). I wouldn't say that the consumption side is irrelevant, but I'm more concerned about the production side. For example: The social value of reporting out a local corruption scandal isn't necessarily linked to the market value of the associated column-inches. The lion's share of the social value comes from rooting out the corruption. Try flipping it around. If a news outlet had enough metrics on past scandal coverage to know that breaking it won't increase profits, should they make a shrewd decision to accept payment from one or more participants in the scandal to bury the story, save the time on reporting it out, and run a wire piece in its place?