9 ms·

I hear you. One nitpick if you don't mind. >I don't think there are any sources lately that you can trust 100%. That is exactly backwards. The journalism neve

by dexen 6y ago

I hear you. One nitpick if you don't mind. >I don't think there are any sources lately that you can trust 100%. That is exactly backwards. The journalism never was truthful; instead it was full of lies by omission, manipulation to push a narrative, and plain mistakes made in the rush to be the first to publish. What changed[1] is the seasoned staff is now largely gone and replaced with low-paid youth fresh off of the school. It's through the lacking experience and missing professionalism that the mask slips, and we now get to see how the sausage is made. Paradoxically now that we get to see how bad it gets at times, the spotty trustworthiness becomes a known quantity, and so we can handle it better. -- [1] aside of the amusing tools like "NewsDiffs" (https://twitter.com/newsdiffs https://twitter.com/newsdiffs), or https://archive.is/ https://archive.is/

gerland 6y ago
I mostly agree, but I think there was a bit of a difference in quality up until about 15 years ago. This was due to the nature of the competition between news outlets. It you have only few suppliers in any domain, then a possibility of a "price war" is relatively small. It's much easier to predict how our counterparts will behave and dumping prices hurts all the participants. It forces the competition to move to different areas - like marketing and quality of service. Once there were more competitors, due to the internet being a thing, all bets were off. No one could hold to their position just because he was considered more reliable by a marginal degree.
- dexen 6y ago
  >I think there was a bit of a difference in quality up until about 15 years ago. Going by those excellent charts[1], there were two distinct "kinks" in intensity of change; around 2000 and around 2015. >the internet The best explainer I've seen thus far is that loading articles with keywords improves searchability and readership metrics. My far fetched hypothesis is that it is a side effect of the present form of search - dominated by one vertical that has strayed far, far away from the original Page Rank idea. -- [1] use of progressive keywords in newspapers, a thread https://twitter.com/ZachG932/status/1133441085118853120 https://twitter.com/ZachG932/status/1133441085118853120 [1.1] more terms, NYT https://i.imgur.com/CZfsLsk.jpg https://i.imgur.com/CZfsLsk.jpg

by dexen 6y ago

gerland 6y ago

I mostly agree, but I think there was a bit of a difference in quality up until about 15 years ago. This was due to the nature of the competition between news outlets. It you have only few suppliers in any domain, then a possibility of a "price war" is relatively small. It's much easier to predict how our counterparts will behave and dumping prices hurts all the participants. It forces the competition to move to different areas - like marketing and quality of service. Once there were more competitors, due to the internet being a thing, all bets were off. No one could hold to their position just because he was considered more reliable by a marginal degree.

dexen 6y ago
>I think there was a bit of a difference in quality up until about 15 years ago. Going by those excellent charts[1], there were two distinct "kinks" in intensity of change; around 2000 and around 2015. >the internet The best explainer I've seen thus far is that loading articles with keywords improves searchability and readership metrics. My far fetched hypothesis is that it is a side effect of the present form of search - dominated by one vertical that has strayed far, far away from the original Page Rank idea. -- [1] use of progressive keywords in newspapers, a thread https://twitter.com/ZachG932/status/1133441085118853120 https://twitter.com/ZachG932/status/1133441085118853120 [1.1] more terms, NYT https://i.imgur.com/CZfsLsk.jpg https://i.imgur.com/CZfsLsk.jpg