5 ms·

In part, imho, the distrust comes from the the standards of the highest tiers of professional journalists being on a low right now too.

by dv_dt 7y ago

nsomaru 7y ago
Journalists are following clicks instead of the other way around
- phkahler 7y ago
  Every day the NYT sends me a summary email. Every day there is a status on impeachment. They dont even call him president, its Mr Trump. The bias is obvious. They would like me to pay for more!
  - mtnGoat 7y ago
    I agree, I will happily pay for news, but most of these "news" outlets are just a bunch of opinions and usually they are all one way or the other depending on the editor.
  - jimmyjohndoe 7y ago
    The NYT has referred to presidents as Mr. X for hundreds of years
    - bobthepanda 7y ago
      To bolster the claim, "Mr. Obama, Your Move" (2014): https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/10/opinion/sunday/mr-obama-your-move.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/10/opinion/sunday/mr-obama-y... And more historical, "Another Interview with Mr. Lincoln; His Opinion of Compromises" (1861) https://www.nytimes.com/1861/01/14/archives/anotherinterview-with-mr-lincoln-his-opinion-of-compromises.html https://www.nytimes.com/1861/01/14/archives/anotherinterview...
  - rhizome 7y ago
    "President" isn't a title, it's a position or role. You don't say "Director Spielberg will be in attendance."
nemild 7y ago
I'm doubtful that most journalists actually want it to be that way. Those are just the economic and reader incentives in journalism today. There are some great stats about just how much the number of professional journalists has shrunk in the social media era.
- catalogia 7y ago
  The very premise of for-profit journalism seems questionable at best.
- rhizome 7y ago
  >in the social media era. In this context I think it should be termed "now that there are no classified ads."
- bostik 7y ago
  I know it's easy (and tempting) to put the blame on social media alone, but there's more than that. The rise of social media certainly accelerated the evisceration, gutting, and - as some might say, annihilation - of journalism but the tailspin trajectory has been in the making for quite a bit longer. Here's a thread from January this year, where a journalism professor lays bare the facts about the decline of his domain: https://twitter.com/jeremylittau/status/1088503510184927233?lang=en https://twitter.com/jeremylittau/status/1088503510184927233?... If my memory serves me right, that thread was on the HN front page at the time. Essentially the expense of quality journalism was seen as frivolous in the 80's, got nixed, and by the mid-90's newspapers relied on their established captive audience to churn out reliable profits with little appetite for innovation. Who was going to compete with them, anyway? Internet changed the landscape, and social media has been instrumental in hammering nails in the coffin. But the decline of journalism and destruction of quality newsrooms has been going on since before there was public internet.
lotsofpulp 7y ago
People don’t want to pay for good journalism, nevermind spending time to read and evaluate if it is or isn’t good journalism. Maybe it’s not even realistic for everyone to do that.
- TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
  People also don't want to pay for good government. As a rule, people don't want to pay for anything that benefits them in a second-order way with non-immediate consequences - even if objectively the benefits are real. It's a classic economic monkey trap. Holding onto something now is "better" than letting go and getting a bigger benefit later. Which suggests that perhaps we should be doing more to eliminate monkey traps from our economic and political systems.
  - rhizome 7y ago
    My stance is that it's anti-your_country not to want to pay for good government. All of it, tax breaks for high earners, shelters, financial engineering to reduce taxes paid...all of it is treasonous to your fellow citizens.
  - wruza 7y ago
    >People also don't want to pay for good government. Maybe because it’s already a paid service and its quality still has to be observed. But if you take their government from them, returning that substantial income cut, they instantly want it back. This doesn’t have to invalidate your point, but this particular comparison seems pretty shaky. (Or it’s not and I’m missing something.)
jacquesm 7y ago
It's not the journalists but their bosses that are the problem.
- gowld 7y ago
  It's not the bosses but their customers that are the problem.
  - dv_dt 7y ago
    Given the bundled nature of mass news media, it's impossible for customers to send a signal for example that CNN news specifically isn't up to their standard. They can cut the cord on a whole set of products or keep their cable bundle neither of which sends signal to CNN about the quality of their journalism. More niche publications don't have that problem, but I think a big question is how we systemically increase the quality of mass journalism.
- dwd 7y ago
  At the end of the day, they are all individuals with their own biases, ambitions or plain irrationality. You just have to take that into account in all you read and hear.

In part, imho, the distrust comes from the the standards of the highest tiers of professional journalists being on a low right now too.

by dv_dt 7y ago

In part, imho, the distrust comes from the the standards of the highest tiers of professional journalists being on a low right now too.

nsomaru 7y ago

Journalists are following clicks instead of the other way around

phkahler 7y ago
Every day the NYT sends me a summary email. Every day there is a status on impeachment. They dont even call him president, its Mr Trump. The bias is obvious. They would like me to pay for more!
- mtnGoat 7y ago
  I agree, I will happily pay for news, but most of these "news" outlets are just a bunch of opinions and usually they are all one way or the other depending on the editor.
- jimmyjohndoe 7y ago
  The NYT has referred to presidents as Mr. X for hundreds of years
  - bobthepanda 7y ago
    To bolster the claim, "Mr. Obama, Your Move" (2014): https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/10/opinion/sunday/mr-obama-your-move.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/10/opinion/sunday/mr-obama-y... And more historical, "Another Interview with Mr. Lincoln; His Opinion of Compromises" (1861) https://www.nytimes.com/1861/01/14/archives/anotherinterview-with-mr-lincoln-his-opinion-of-compromises.html https://www.nytimes.com/1861/01/14/archives/anotherinterview...
- rhizome 7y ago
  "President" isn't a title, it's a position or role. You don't say "Director Spielberg will be in attendance."

nemild 7y ago

I'm doubtful that most journalists actually want it to be that way. Those are just the economic and reader incentives in journalism today. There are some great stats about just how much the number of professional journalists has shrunk in the social media era.

catalogia 7y ago
The very premise of for-profit journalism seems questionable at best.
rhizome 7y ago
>in the social media era. In this context I think it should be termed "now that there are no classified ads."
bostik 7y ago
I know it's easy (and tempting) to put the blame on social media alone, but there's more than that. The rise of social media certainly accelerated the evisceration, gutting, and - as some might say, annihilation - of journalism but the tailspin trajectory has been in the making for quite a bit longer. Here's a thread from January this year, where a journalism professor lays bare the facts about the decline of his domain: https://twitter.com/jeremylittau/status/1088503510184927233?lang=en https://twitter.com/jeremylittau/status/1088503510184927233?... If my memory serves me right, that thread was on the HN front page at the time. Essentially the expense of quality journalism was seen as frivolous in the 80's, got nixed, and by the mid-90's newspapers relied on their established captive audience to churn out reliable profits with little appetite for innovation. Who was going to compete with them, anyway? Internet changed the landscape, and social media has been instrumental in hammering nails in the coffin. But the decline of journalism and destruction of quality newsrooms has been going on since before there was public internet.

lotsofpulp 7y ago

People don’t want to pay for good journalism, nevermind spending time to read and evaluate if it is or isn’t good journalism. Maybe it’s not even realistic for everyone to do that.

TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
People also don't want to pay for good government. As a rule, people don't want to pay for anything that benefits them in a second-order way with non-immediate consequences - even if objectively the benefits are real. It's a classic economic monkey trap. Holding onto something now is "better" than letting go and getting a bigger benefit later. Which suggests that perhaps we should be doing more to eliminate monkey traps from our economic and political systems.
- rhizome 7y ago
  My stance is that it's anti-your_country not to want to pay for good government. All of it, tax breaks for high earners, shelters, financial engineering to reduce taxes paid...all of it is treasonous to your fellow citizens.
- wruza 7y ago
  >People also don't want to pay for good government. Maybe because it’s already a paid service and its quality still has to be observed. But if you take their government from them, returning that substantial income cut, they instantly want it back. This doesn’t have to invalidate your point, but this particular comparison seems pretty shaky. (Or it’s not and I’m missing something.)

jacquesm 7y ago

It's not the journalists but their bosses that are the problem.

gowld 7y ago
It's not the bosses but their customers that are the problem.
- dv_dt 7y ago
  Given the bundled nature of mass news media, it's impossible for customers to send a signal for example that CNN news specifically isn't up to their standard. They can cut the cord on a whole set of products or keep their cable bundle neither of which sends signal to CNN about the quality of their journalism. More niche publications don't have that problem, but I think a big question is how we systemically increase the quality of mass journalism.
dwd 7y ago
At the end of the day, they are all individuals with their own biases, ambitions or plain irrationality. You just have to take that into account in all you read and hear.