4 ms·

This is the first time in many many months I’ve read an article from begin to end, in one sitting. And then I looked the date it was written: 1971. We don’t ha

by sildur 7y ago

This is the first time in many many months I’ve read an article from begin to end, in one sitting. And then I looked the date it was written: 1971. We don’t have shorter attention spans. We simply cannot handle the utter crap that passes by articles today.

eropple 7y ago
There's plenty of great long-form stuff out there. You just have to know where to look. This one came to mind, from 2016, but it's just what was at the top of my stack: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/06/cca-private-prisons-corrections-corporation-inmates-investigation-bauer/ https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/06/cca-private-pri...
iron0013 7y ago
Whenever longform articles are posted from more recent dates, the HN comments are full of people complaining that the article is too long, takes too long to get to the point, employs flowery prose, etc all of which this article would be just as guilty of—were those valid objections to begin with.
- throwanem 7y ago
  I don't know about that. Modern longform articles all seem as if they're trying to be The Atlantic, with a very specific style that seems heavily informed by the conventional language of cinematography - and does not translate well to the written word. In thirty frames a second, it's quick and easy to do establishing shots, for example. Starting an essay with one takes a couple of paragraphs, and once you've read enough such pieces to start noticing that they're doing it (that they're all doing it), it quickly becomes tiresome. In such circumstances, you don't get impatient because of pull-to-refresh Twitter poisoning; you get impatient because your time is being wasted. This Rolling Stone article, meanwhile, isn't like that at all. It starts by quoting four quick stanzas of doggerel to briefly set the tone, and then it's right into the meat of its subject matter. Four sentences in, you know exactly what it's talking about, and if the subject matter interests you at all, you're engaged. It's written with a respect for the value of its audience's time that is nowhere evident in the modern longform style. If I had to put the difference briefly, I'd put it like this: the Rolling Stone article is an example of genuine craftsmanship in nonfiction prose. It has a point to make, and it does so, in a way that's interesting and enjoyable without overstaying its welcome. Conversely, the Atlantic style, in which modern longform is conventionally done, is an example of performative prose-stylistry for its own sake. It screams "Look at me! I'm a writer! Look at the way I paint pictures with words!" Maybe you enjoy that sort of thing. If so, you're welcome. But saying "look at me, I'm amazing" is not the job of journalism, and it's hardly a surprise that people get impatient with journalists who behave as if saying "look at me, I'm amazing" was not only part of their job, but the meat of it.
gameswithgo 7y ago
Perhaps the articles from 1971 that get reposted today represent the top 1% of articles from then, making articles from then seem so much better than now?
- MiroF 7y ago
  this, combined with the chronic underfunding of long-form journalism because we have shorter attention spans.
  - Gene_Parmesan 7y ago
    We don't have shorter attention spans, this has been widely debunked. Not only was it debunked, no one in the field ever believed it anyways. See here: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-38896790 https://www.bbc.com/news/health-38896790
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  My experience looking at, say, the front-page (or more likely these days, inside-page briefings section) of a newspaper, today vs. say 1970, or at an issue of a leading magazine, is that writing and editorial standards have changed, largely for the worse. Newspapers are an easier direct comparison, and though I don't have a specific example to show (a selection, say, of front pages from the same day of the month across a span of decades would be useful -- 12 issues a year, enough to show trends, but not so many as to drown them out -- would be a good demonstration), but I've done periodic research and am struck. There are always gradual changes, but a tipping point toward commercialisation and sheer crassness emerged strongly in the 1990s. For magazines, the larger problem is that so many simply aren't what they once were, notably leading US news weeklies. It might be better to consider a set of political magazines -- New Republic, National Review, The Economist. Possibly Atlantic, Harpers Weekly, and The New Yorker. And perhaps Rolling Stone as well. There's some survivor's bias, yes. But there's also been a palpable shift.
  - endgame 7y ago
    In Australia, our independent public broadcaster reads like a clickbait rag. I routinely find basic spelling, grammar and punctuation errors in newspapers. That's not how I used to remember the news.

by sildur 7y ago

eropple 7y ago

There's plenty of great long-form stuff out there. You just have to know where to look. This one came to mind, from 2016, but it's just what was at the top of my stack: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/06/cca-private-prisons-corrections-corporation-inmates-investigation-bauer/ https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/06/cca-private-pri...

iron0013 7y ago

Whenever longform articles are posted from more recent dates, the HN comments are full of people complaining that the article is too long, takes too long to get to the point, employs flowery prose, etc all of which this article would be just as guilty of—were those valid objections to begin with.

throwanem 7y ago
I don't know about that. Modern longform articles all seem as if they're trying to be The Atlantic, with a very specific style that seems heavily informed by the conventional language of cinematography - and does not translate well to the written word. In thirty frames a second, it's quick and easy to do establishing shots, for example. Starting an essay with one takes a couple of paragraphs, and once you've read enough such pieces to start noticing that they're doing it (that they're all doing it), it quickly becomes tiresome. In such circumstances, you don't get impatient because of pull-to-refresh Twitter poisoning; you get impatient because your time is being wasted. This Rolling Stone article, meanwhile, isn't like that at all. It starts by quoting four quick stanzas of doggerel to briefly set the tone, and then it's right into the meat of its subject matter. Four sentences in, you know exactly what it's talking about, and if the subject matter interests you at all, you're engaged. It's written with a respect for the value of its audience's time that is nowhere evident in the modern longform style. If I had to put the difference briefly, I'd put it like this: the Rolling Stone article is an example of genuine craftsmanship in nonfiction prose. It has a point to make, and it does so, in a way that's interesting and enjoyable without overstaying its welcome. Conversely, the Atlantic style, in which modern longform is conventionally done, is an example of performative prose-stylistry for its own sake. It screams "Look at me! I'm a writer! Look at the way I paint pictures with words!" Maybe you enjoy that sort of thing. If so, you're welcome. But saying "look at me, I'm amazing" is not the job of journalism, and it's hardly a surprise that people get impatient with journalists who behave as if saying "look at me, I'm amazing" was not only part of their job, but the meat of it.

gameswithgo 7y ago

Perhaps the articles from 1971 that get reposted today represent the top 1% of articles from then, making articles from then seem so much better than now?

MiroF 7y ago
this, combined with the chronic underfunding of long-form journalism because we have shorter attention spans.
- Gene_Parmesan 7y ago
  We don't have shorter attention spans, this has been widely debunked. Not only was it debunked, no one in the field ever believed it anyways. See here: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-38896790 https://www.bbc.com/news/health-38896790
dredmorbius 7y ago
My experience looking at, say, the front-page (or more likely these days, inside-page briefings section) of a newspaper, today vs. say 1970, or at an issue of a leading magazine, is that writing and editorial standards have changed, largely for the worse. Newspapers are an easier direct comparison, and though I don't have a specific example to show (a selection, say, of front pages from the same day of the month across a span of decades would be useful -- 12 issues a year, enough to show trends, but not so many as to drown them out -- would be a good demonstration), but I've done periodic research and am struck. There are always gradual changes, but a tipping point toward commercialisation and sheer crassness emerged strongly in the 1990s. For magazines, the larger problem is that so many simply aren't what they once were, notably leading US news weeklies. It might be better to consider a set of political magazines -- New Republic, National Review, The Economist. Possibly Atlantic, Harpers Weekly, and The New Yorker. And perhaps Rolling Stone as well. There's some survivor's bias, yes. But there's also been a palpable shift.
- endgame 7y ago
  In Australia, our independent public broadcaster reads like a clickbait rag. I routinely find basic spelling, grammar and punctuation errors in newspapers. That's not how I used to remember the news.