3 ms·

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.
  - dredmorbius 7y ago
    I've seen sharp declines in the BBC and NPR myself. ABC (Australia) is decidely mixed, I'll grant you that.

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.
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  I've seen sharp declines in the BBC and NPR myself. ABC (Australia) is decidely mixed, I'll grant you that.