18 ms·

I don't think they are. I think they are optimizing for survival. Serious news is expensive, and at this point, a niche market. Few people would consume it (o

I don't think they are. I think they are optimizing for survival. Serious news is expensive, and at this point, a niche market. Few people would consume it (or even be capable of doing so), even fewer are ready to pay the real price of it. So they did the next best thing: they changed to please the market in a way that makes money. Grabbing a lot of attention, as cheaply as possible, so that you can sell it to the highest bidder. You think it is self destroying, but only if you see it as from the point of view of a body that should inform people. But as a group that needs to survive, it's a working strategy. Certainly easier to implement than finding a novel way to survive doing the right thing. Infortunaly, this will lead to suffering for the entire society. But that's the way our economical system work. It assumes that the markets balances things out. Unfortunatly, the common good is not something most individuals prioritize, or even conceptualize, when buying things. Often, they actually can't, because their survival depend on more pressing day-to-day matters.

CydeWeys 6y ago
> But as a group that needs to survive, it's a working strategy. It's not working though. A lot of people canceled their NY Times subscriptions after the "Send in the troops" op-ed. Massively pissing off your customer base like that is not a winning move.
- BiteCode_dev 6y ago
  Individually, each entity composing the group we call "press", may find itself in geopardy. But as a whole, it's working. They are just copying each others, because they can see what works and what doesn't. But because everything has a context, and luck is involved, they will be many dying anyway.
- bryanlarsen 6y ago
  The newsroom revolted against the editor that published the "Send in the troops" article and got him fired. So for this anecdote it was the right strategy, it just didn't happen soon enough.
  - Khaine 6y ago
    From the same organisation that published an op-ed from the Taliban. The whole thing is absolutely bizarre
- rb808 6y ago
  The other half cancelled their subscription because they fired the editor, so they lose-lose really.
  - thebradbain 6y ago
    They fired the editor because he admitted he himself “did not read the piece”. Seems like a fireable offense to print something you didn’t read, when it is quite literally your job to. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/06/04/business/new-york-times-op-ed-cotton.amp.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/06/04/busi...
    - s_y_n_t_a_x 6y ago
      I bet he didn't read the piece, if he had he would have known it would have pissed off their base. Notice how they didn't say HOW the OPINION piece didn't meet their standard.
- kshatrea 6y ago
  I am not American and don't live there but have American friends. Most of them anecdotally were happy about the op-ed you mention - they probably aren't members of your political tribe. But then they don't subscribe to the NYT anyway. My point is that the GP is right, this is survival. They tried to be neutral by publishing an op-ed the other side probably liked. Didn't work and therefore it pushes them more into one camp to survive. Just a guess based on anecdotal information.
  - mushbino 6y ago
    Your American friends were happy about a racist senator saying they should send in the military to kill peaceful protesters? People protesting police violence?
    - eeereerews 6y ago
      > Those excuses are built on a revolting moral equivalence of rioters and looters to peaceful, law-abiding protesters. A majority who seek to protest peacefully shouldn’t be confused with bands of miscreants.
      - mushbino 6y ago
        Is ending centuries of systemic racism and extra-judicial killings at the hands of police worth some insured property damage? Tom Cotton doesn't think so.
        s_y_n_t_a_x 6y ago
        It wasn't just property damage, and insurance isn't magic. David Dorn, a black ex-police officer, and 14 other people died due to the unhandled looting. If they would have sent National Guard in to protect storefronts those deaths would have never happened. Those peaceful protesters deserve protection from the looters as well btw.
        watwut 6y ago
- there_the_and 6y ago
  They reported at the beginning of May that subscriptions are at a high: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/06/business/media/new-york-times-earnings-subscriptions-coronavirus.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/06/business/media/new-york-t... Scanning the google results for “nyt subscribers” I see them reporting 5 million in Feb and 4.7 million in Aug 2019, so it looks to me like subscriptions have been accelerating in recent months. Can you please share the information you have regarding mass subscription cancellations due to this op-ed? I would like to see it.
  - CydeWeys 6y ago
    The op-ed was published on June 3rd.
    - there_the_and 6y ago
      I’m asking if you could please share links to the information you saw about about the widespread subscription cancellations that you referred to.
aPALKbaq 6y ago
I think the problem is deeper than just the press. These identity flame wars are sponsored by almost all big (non-news) corporations. The reason is clear. While there is distraction, the real issues are unaddressed and they can keep putting their hands in your pocket when you aren't looking. Also, excessive pseudo-socialism is a great tool to drive down wages and have the whole world compete against each other. Locust capitalism.
- mushbino 6y ago
  What is "excessive pseudo socialism" and "Locust capitalism?" Also, I see your account was created an hour ago.
  - spats1990 6y ago
    Locust capitalism might be related to this: https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2013/04/03/the-locust-economy/ https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2013/04/03/the-locust-economy/ As for the pseudo-socialism part, I have no idea what it could mean either.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    > pseudo socialism Example: The US healthcare system. The financing is through socialist policies (Medicare, state assistance, regulatory requirements/incentives for employer-provided insurance), but the system itself if thoroughly corrupt and inefficient. Example: "Affordable housing" subsidies/requirements. Instead of actually addressing high housing costs in general, set aside an inadequate amount of substandard housing with burdensome hoops to jump through to get it and call that a solution when it isn't. Example: Environmental rules that apply to where a product is manufactured but not where it's sold, so that instead of eliminating pollution, manufacturing jobs move to countries that allow pollution. The half measures are the worst of both worlds. You get the inefficiency, incompetence and unaccountability of central planning and the externalities, corruption and high prices of market failures.
    - IG_Semmelweiss 6y ago
      Thats not pseudo socialism Thats just socialism. The definition of socialism is social ownership of the methods implemented. In all cases above, the public at large owns the cost (and benefits) of the methods implemented: Medicare, Medicaid, affordable housing etc. We all pay for them, full stop. Just because some of the programs have worse outcomes than elsewhere in the world, doesnt make them "less" socialist policies.
gopi 6y ago
True, subscription is the main revenue source, not ads in this new media environment. So the way to optimize is to find a most passionate tribe and serve their point of view. This is why NYT is going to stop growing if Trump loses in November. With no need to resist there is no need to subscribe
- fragmede 6y ago
  Are they? Centrists aren't a particularly passionate tribe, and the NYT's is about as mainstream media as it gets. They're going to have an absolute field day leading up to and including November, no matter who wins or loses, playing up, well, everything. NYT's most passionate tribe is not the Left, they're not left enough for them. But they're not playing to a tribe, but the passion itself. Seattle is no longer front page news for the NYTs because articles talking about hippies sitting around in drum circles not beating people up, or being beat up by police, is boring.
  - flyinglizard 6y ago
    I’m a NYT subscriber - NYT is downright obsessed with Trump, and the all consuming anguish from the Democrats. I’m not saying right or wrong, I’m just saying that reading their opinion section - where editorial bias can _really_ come into play - you may find most opinions revolve around Trump and his policies. It is so ingrained into the newspaper that they cover Trump negatively even when he does something agreeable just because what he stands for. I’m not an American, so no horse in the game - but this is obsessive.
    - JackFr 6y ago
      I am a subscriber to the NYT as well and lean center right politically. The NYT is without question the best newspaper in the country, and worth reading despite their editorial slant. Ignore the front page and the op-ed section and their coverage is wider, deeper And better written than any other US newspaper. (The Washington Post is good for politics, but mostly cause it’s the local paper in a one company town.) But TFA isn’t about bias so much as the the left leaning press eating itself with doctrinaire purges.
ashtonkem 6y ago
The press as a high minded arbiter of truth is a relatively new concept; historically journalism has been bitterly partisan and often misleading at best. Arguably the current trend is a return to historical norms, not an aberration to be feared.
- cplanas 6y ago
  The current trend may not be an aberration, but it should be feared.
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    It should only be feared if: 1) You believe that the press did a good job during this unusual period. 2) You consider some of the sins of the past to be the fault of partisan press, at least in part.
    - Khaine 6y ago
      Journalists of the past basically started the Spanish–American War
      - ashtonkem 6y ago
        For sure. I wouldn’t want to go back to that specific period of journalism.
        eli_gottlieb 6y ago
        And journalism has exacerbated every single Middle Eastern or African war/armed-conflict in my lifetime.
        ashtonkem 6y ago
        Hence point #1; I think that the press has done a better job at pretend objectivity during my lifetime than it has at actually being objective.
chiefalchemist 6y ago
> So they did the next best thing: they changed to please the market in a way that makes money. Grabbing a lot of attention, as cheaply as possible, so that you can sell it to the highest bidder. Accurate. Agreed. And a completely fair business decision. We all have bill to pay. Unfortunately, they (wrongly) continue to sell this new version of their craft (?) as journalism. The masses buy in - confirmation bias is a powerful force - and we are today exactly where we should be: Truth is fluid. Editorial is journalism. Everyone - blue, red or orange - gets hammer their facts into their echo chamber. Etc. It's important to realize that there is no democracy or democratic process without a health and proper Fouth Estate. Btw, Tali Sharot's "The Influential Mind" is a great read on the subject on influence. https://www.amazon.com/Influential-Mind-Reveals-Change-Others/dp/1627792651 https://www.amazon.com/Influential-Mind-Reveals-Change-Other... Edit: their to there. with to without.
- mistermann 6y ago
  > Unfortunately, they (wrongly) continue to sell this new version of their craft (?) as journalism. The masses buy in - confirmation bias is a powerful force - and we are today exactly where we should be: Truth is fluid. How is the general public supposed to learn what is happening though? If the entire MSM had adopted this new business model, and with the whole fake news thing that's been drilled into people's heads for so long, along with the narrative that anyone that disagrees with trustworthy organizations is a conspiracy theorist...is there a path out that consists of anything other than a major player committing financial suicide by breaking ranks, or them all deciding to come clean simultaneously? Bloggers might be the one bright spot, but what percentage of the population reads blogs, and if they started to get too popular they may be framed as conspiracy theorists before long too. Not a good situation, unless you're China or Russia.
  - jonhohle 6y ago
    There are an increasing number of streaming independent journalists (at least that’s what they claim) that support themselves through patreon. These small ops can often go into excruciating detail on their pet subject matter and follow the story rather than construct a narrative. They often tend to go back and correct themselves when new information is discovered - something MSM is loathe to do (where’s the corrections on collaboration/cooperation now that we know the basis for all the noise was campaign financed muck?)
maest 6y ago
The most common way the free market fails to do the "right" thing is by ignoring externalities. By optimising for user engagement, media is ignoring the effect it has over society at large. This is actually an argument for government sponsored news outlets implemented in a politically neutral manner; i.e. the television shouldn't just be a mouthpiece for the state/the ruling party. For an example of state-financed but politically independent organisation, one can look at the civil servants system in the UK.
- WalterBright 6y ago
  You're always beholden to the paymaster.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    Case in point, the BBC does a lot of good reporting in general, but they're rarely critical of the government. It may not even be possible for them to cover politics in a "neutral" way, because anything but the party line on a political issue is heresy to the partisans. If you gave people the hard truths on partisan issues you'd have both sides trying to shut you down because everything you said would be contradicting one side or the other.
    - nimvlaj30 6y ago
      Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) has been rightly critical of our government, and has been hit with pay cut after pay cut.
      - mmm_grayons 6y ago
        > rightly Case in point about the difficulty in covering politics in a manner most would consider neutral.
        quintushoratius 6y ago
        One could argue that a journalist's duty is to be critical of the government, regardless of the specifics. The ABC might still be considered neutral.
Animats 6y ago
Serious news is expensive, and at this point, a niche market. I suspect that's correct. It's hard now to find any news outlet now that sticks to "Who, What, When, Where, Why". This is a consequence of pay per click, probably. The left and the right now both have a checklist of mandatory positions required to avoid punishment. Those positions are in many cases contrary to fact. That's not good. Denial has become a core part of American politics.
- js2 6y ago
  I'm 48. My family had a newspaper subscription (in my case, the Miami Herald). I've been a consumer of news all my life, mostly print media. (My family rarely watched local news except for when a hurricane was headed our way, but would often watch programs like 60 minutes.) When was the news ever "Who, What, When, Where, Why?" It's always had a slant as long as I remember. Here's "the most trusted man in America" calling ror the U.S. to get out of Vietnam: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dn2RjahTi3M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dn2RjahTi3M What is that if not a partisan political opinion? The news has always chosen what and what not to report. Just deciding what is and isn't newsworthy is a political decision. Heck, my conservative friend used to read the Wall Street Journal. I'm talking when we were kids (10-12) I'd argue with him about whether Reagan was a good president. I thought even then he had a highly colored view of reality and I'm sure he thought the same of me. BTW, I don't think the problem is the press. I think it's a lack of open-mindedness, critical thinking, and healthy skepticism. We get what we deserve by not educating our kids better about how to consume information and consider view points outside their own worldview.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    But he was "the most trusted man in America". People across the political spectrum trusted him to reliably and accurately report what's what. There are figures like that today - Joe Rogan comes to mind - but I don't think anyone could become so trusted while adhering to the speech codes outlined in the article.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
bawolff 6y ago
Seems like optimizing for short term gains over long term sustainability. A mistake lots of businesses make.
xg15 6y ago
> But that's the way our economical system work. It assumes that the markets balances things out. Unfortunatly, the common good is not something most individuals prioritize, or even conceptualize, when buying things. I mean, those kinds of market failures are exactly what large parts of "the left" are frequently highlighting.
54351623 6y ago
I don't know, I think you'll wind up with a bunch of journalists charging independently to produce media, such as the author of the piece does or something like the kickstarters that produce long form docs.
titzer 6y ago
Your comments are only tangentially related and I suspect you did not read the article. It is not about the economics of the American Press, it's about the lynchmobs that have formed around thoughtcrime and the sometimes public hounding of people who don't push the proper narrative. There might be economic factors intertwined with the push for more groupthink, but I think there is a link missing in the chain of logic from this article's subject matter and your reply.
pwdisswordfish2 6y ago
How can we make serious news less expensive (to produce)? Reducing the cost could be one way to compete with "non-serious news".
- tatersolid 6y ago
  You can’t reduce the cost of “real journalism” by much. It takes lots of time and manual effort to find and vet sources, dual-source all facts, piece together the puzzle from sets of verified facts without making non-factual leaps. Then you have to actually write in such a way that the reader/viewer gets only a series of facts, and any inferences or opinion they draw should be their own. That ain’t cheap.
brownbat 6y ago
To echo your point, there was an Aspen festival panel a few years ago where a network news rep/owner was refreshingly honest. He said everyone thinks they want the news to be deeply insightful and informative, but the people who would consume that product tend to go out nights and do interesting things like attend ballets or go to museums, or go to things like the aspen festival. Or at least they are just reading a few articles online. They make news for the sort of people who just binge television news constantly. These people don't have a custom rss feed to make that efficient, and that is a special type of person. "We run the market test against PBS every night." If PBS started hitting numbers, every other station would jump to that model immediately.
andreskytt 6y ago
Interestingly, this market force seems to lead to media very similar to that of the USSR. The only thing currently missing (everybody agreeing with each other and adhering to a specific non-value-based narrative is there) is the media speaking on behalf of the people.
tsegratis 6y ago
I suppose the cause is society and news believing their opinion is truth. Rather than there being a truth worth seeking If only subjectivity is true, society must fragment. Everyone forms a different view -- unity is lost Do people just want to pay and read opinion. Or do they seek a reality truth The second goal will succeed no matter what newspapers do
7532yahoogmail 6y ago
>So they did the next best thing: they changed to please the market Slow down. This is the hackernews equivalent to "yada yada yadaing" over the real stuff. You say points big and silly you can't backup. I work at a business news organization, and know someone who just left WSJ. Now, think again how you'd tell them face to face they're niche? You're gonna tell them how the media business works? Like what are you going to say?Are you claiming FB is a new organization? In fact, are you really saying anything at all? Those issues are important, but what I find most concerning about your reply is "the way our economical system work". You're either not in management, are an incredibly crappy manager, or don't know anything about it. You do it for the money like some lame reach for that Tesla R&R refrain to argue for lower intellectual (ethics/morals) standards ... that's the beginning of the end for organizations ... what you fail to get is that other organizations who are not so easily sold your sale of good will be still doing the news and fighting the good fight. Those who understand money the best and make the most over the long term know best money is NOT the measure of all things.
eevilspock 6y ago
> Often, they actually can't, because their survival depend on more pressing day-to-day matters. I agree with you entirely except for this. For the poor, yes. But there are plenty of people the more pressing day-to-day matters is not survival but how to hoard even more wealth and advantage than they already have. Like sending their children to private schools despite that only exacerbating the already gross iniquities of life for poor children vs elite children. Or figuring out how to upgrade to an even nicer house or which gentrifying neighborhood will yield them the best returns in 10-20 years once it is fully taken over.

CydeWeys 6y ago

> But as a group that needs to survive, it's a working strategy. It's not working though. A lot of people canceled their NY Times subscriptions after the "Send in the troops" op-ed. Massively pissing off your customer base like that is not a winning move.

BiteCode_dev 6y ago
Individually, each entity composing the group we call "press", may find itself in geopardy. But as a whole, it's working. They are just copying each others, because they can see what works and what doesn't. But because everything has a context, and luck is involved, they will be many dying anyway.
bryanlarsen 6y ago
The newsroom revolted against the editor that published the "Send in the troops" article and got him fired. So for this anecdote it was the right strategy, it just didn't happen soon enough.
- Khaine 6y ago
  From the same organisation that published an op-ed from the Taliban. The whole thing is absolutely bizarre
rb808 6y ago
The other half cancelled their subscription because they fired the editor, so they lose-lose really.
- thebradbain 6y ago
  They fired the editor because he admitted he himself “did not read the piece”. Seems like a fireable offense to print something you didn’t read, when it is quite literally your job to. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/06/04/business/new-york-times-op-ed-cotton.amp.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/06/04/busi...
  - s_y_n_t_a_x 6y ago
    I bet he didn't read the piece, if he had he would have known it would have pissed off their base. Notice how they didn't say HOW the OPINION piece didn't meet their standard.
kshatrea 6y ago
I am not American and don't live there but have American friends. Most of them anecdotally were happy about the op-ed you mention - they probably aren't members of your political tribe. But then they don't subscribe to the NYT anyway. My point is that the GP is right, this is survival. They tried to be neutral by publishing an op-ed the other side probably liked. Didn't work and therefore it pushes them more into one camp to survive. Just a guess based on anecdotal information.
- mushbino 6y ago
  Your American friends were happy about a racist senator saying they should send in the military to kill peaceful protesters? People protesting police violence?
  - eeereerews 6y ago
    > Those excuses are built on a revolting moral equivalence of rioters and looters to peaceful, law-abiding protesters. A majority who seek to protest peacefully shouldn’t be confused with bands of miscreants.
    - mushbino 6y ago
      Is ending centuries of systemic racism and extra-judicial killings at the hands of police worth some insured property damage? Tom Cotton doesn't think so.
      - s_y_n_t_a_x 6y ago
        It wasn't just property damage, and insurance isn't magic. David Dorn, a black ex-police officer, and 14 other people died due to the unhandled looting. If they would have sent National Guard in to protect storefronts those deaths would have never happened. Those peaceful protesters deserve protection from the looters as well btw.
        watwut 6y ago
there_the_and 6y ago
They reported at the beginning of May that subscriptions are at a high: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/06/business/media/new-york-times-earnings-subscriptions-coronavirus.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/06/business/media/new-york-t... Scanning the google results for “nyt subscribers” I see them reporting 5 million in Feb and 4.7 million in Aug 2019, so it looks to me like subscriptions have been accelerating in recent months. Can you please share the information you have regarding mass subscription cancellations due to this op-ed? I would like to see it.
- CydeWeys 6y ago
  The op-ed was published on June 3rd.
  - there_the_and 6y ago
    I’m asking if you could please share links to the information you saw about about the widespread subscription cancellations that you referred to.

aPALKbaq 6y ago

I think the problem is deeper than just the press. These identity flame wars are sponsored by almost all big (non-news) corporations. The reason is clear. While there is distraction, the real issues are unaddressed and they can keep putting their hands in your pocket when you aren't looking. Also, excessive pseudo-socialism is a great tool to drive down wages and have the whole world compete against each other. Locust capitalism.

mushbino 6y ago
What is "excessive pseudo socialism" and "Locust capitalism?" Also, I see your account was created an hour ago.
- spats1990 6y ago
  Locust capitalism might be related to this: https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2013/04/03/the-locust-economy/ https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2013/04/03/the-locust-economy/ As for the pseudo-socialism part, I have no idea what it could mean either.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  > pseudo socialism Example: The US healthcare system. The financing is through socialist policies (Medicare, state assistance, regulatory requirements/incentives for employer-provided insurance), but the system itself if thoroughly corrupt and inefficient. Example: "Affordable housing" subsidies/requirements. Instead of actually addressing high housing costs in general, set aside an inadequate amount of substandard housing with burdensome hoops to jump through to get it and call that a solution when it isn't. Example: Environmental rules that apply to where a product is manufactured but not where it's sold, so that instead of eliminating pollution, manufacturing jobs move to countries that allow pollution. The half measures are the worst of both worlds. You get the inefficiency, incompetence and unaccountability of central planning and the externalities, corruption and high prices of market failures.
  - IG_Semmelweiss 6y ago
    Thats not pseudo socialism Thats just socialism. The definition of socialism is social ownership of the methods implemented. In all cases above, the public at large owns the cost (and benefits) of the methods implemented: Medicare, Medicaid, affordable housing etc. We all pay for them, full stop. Just because some of the programs have worse outcomes than elsewhere in the world, doesnt make them "less" socialist policies.

gopi 6y ago

True, subscription is the main revenue source, not ads in this new media environment. So the way to optimize is to find a most passionate tribe and serve their point of view. This is why NYT is going to stop growing if Trump loses in November. With no need to resist there is no need to subscribe

fragmede 6y ago
Are they? Centrists aren't a particularly passionate tribe, and the NYT's is about as mainstream media as it gets. They're going to have an absolute field day leading up to and including November, no matter who wins or loses, playing up, well, everything. NYT's most passionate tribe is not the Left, they're not left enough for them. But they're not playing to a tribe, but the passion itself. Seattle is no longer front page news for the NYTs because articles talking about hippies sitting around in drum circles not beating people up, or being beat up by police, is boring.
- flyinglizard 6y ago
  I’m a NYT subscriber - NYT is downright obsessed with Trump, and the all consuming anguish from the Democrats. I’m not saying right or wrong, I’m just saying that reading their opinion section - where editorial bias can _really_ come into play - you may find most opinions revolve around Trump and his policies. It is so ingrained into the newspaper that they cover Trump negatively even when he does something agreeable just because what he stands for. I’m not an American, so no horse in the game - but this is obsessive.
  - JackFr 6y ago
    I am a subscriber to the NYT as well and lean center right politically. The NYT is without question the best newspaper in the country, and worth reading despite their editorial slant. Ignore the front page and the op-ed section and their coverage is wider, deeper And better written than any other US newspaper. (The Washington Post is good for politics, but mostly cause it’s the local paper in a one company town.) But TFA isn’t about bias so much as the the left leaning press eating itself with doctrinaire purges.

ashtonkem 6y ago

The press as a high minded arbiter of truth is a relatively new concept; historically journalism has been bitterly partisan and often misleading at best. Arguably the current trend is a return to historical norms, not an aberration to be feared.

cplanas 6y ago
The current trend may not be an aberration, but it should be feared.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  It should only be feared if: 1) You believe that the press did a good job during this unusual period. 2) You consider some of the sins of the past to be the fault of partisan press, at least in part.
  - Khaine 6y ago
    Journalists of the past basically started the Spanish–American War
    - ashtonkem 6y ago
      For sure. I wouldn’t want to go back to that specific period of journalism.
      - eli_gottlieb 6y ago
        And journalism has exacerbated every single Middle Eastern or African war/armed-conflict in my lifetime.
        ashtonkem 6y ago
        Hence point #1; I think that the press has done a better job at pretend objectivity during my lifetime than it has at actually being objective.

chiefalchemist 6y ago

> So they did the next best thing: they changed to please the market in a way that makes money. Grabbing a lot of attention, as cheaply as possible, so that you can sell it to the highest bidder. Accurate. Agreed. And a completely fair business decision. We all have bill to pay. Unfortunately, they (wrongly) continue to sell this new version of their craft (?) as journalism. The masses buy in - confirmation bias is a powerful force - and we are today exactly where we should be: Truth is fluid. Editorial is journalism. Everyone - blue, red or orange - gets hammer their facts into their echo chamber. Etc. It's important to realize that there is no democracy or democratic process without a health and proper Fouth Estate. Btw, Tali Sharot's "The Influential Mind" is a great read on the subject on influence. https://www.amazon.com/Influential-Mind-Reveals-Change-Others/dp/1627792651 https://www.amazon.com/Influential-Mind-Reveals-Change-Other... Edit: their to there. with to without.

mistermann 6y ago
> Unfortunately, they (wrongly) continue to sell this new version of their craft (?) as journalism. The masses buy in - confirmation bias is a powerful force - and we are today exactly where we should be: Truth is fluid. How is the general public supposed to learn what is happening though? If the entire MSM had adopted this new business model, and with the whole fake news thing that's been drilled into people's heads for so long, along with the narrative that anyone that disagrees with trustworthy organizations is a conspiracy theorist...is there a path out that consists of anything other than a major player committing financial suicide by breaking ranks, or them all deciding to come clean simultaneously? Bloggers might be the one bright spot, but what percentage of the population reads blogs, and if they started to get too popular they may be framed as conspiracy theorists before long too. Not a good situation, unless you're China or Russia.
- jonhohle 6y ago
  There are an increasing number of streaming independent journalists (at least that’s what they claim) that support themselves through patreon. These small ops can often go into excruciating detail on their pet subject matter and follow the story rather than construct a narrative. They often tend to go back and correct themselves when new information is discovered - something MSM is loathe to do (where’s the corrections on collaboration/cooperation now that we know the basis for all the noise was campaign financed muck?)

maest 6y ago

The most common way the free market fails to do the "right" thing is by ignoring externalities. By optimising for user engagement, media is ignoring the effect it has over society at large. This is actually an argument for government sponsored news outlets implemented in a politically neutral manner; i.e. the television shouldn't just be a mouthpiece for the state/the ruling party. For an example of state-financed but politically independent organisation, one can look at the civil servants system in the UK.

WalterBright 6y ago
You're always beholden to the paymaster.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  Case in point, the BBC does a lot of good reporting in general, but they're rarely critical of the government. It may not even be possible for them to cover politics in a "neutral" way, because anything but the party line on a political issue is heresy to the partisans. If you gave people the hard truths on partisan issues you'd have both sides trying to shut you down because everything you said would be contradicting one side or the other.
  - nimvlaj30 6y ago
    Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) has been rightly critical of our government, and has been hit with pay cut after pay cut.
    - mmm_grayons 6y ago
      > rightly Case in point about the difficulty in covering politics in a manner most would consider neutral.
      - quintushoratius 6y ago
        One could argue that a journalist's duty is to be critical of the government, regardless of the specifics. The ABC might still be considered neutral.

Animats 6y ago

Serious news is expensive, and at this point, a niche market. I suspect that's correct. It's hard now to find any news outlet now that sticks to "Who, What, When, Where, Why". This is a consequence of pay per click, probably. The left and the right now both have a checklist of mandatory positions required to avoid punishment. Those positions are in many cases contrary to fact. That's not good. Denial has become a core part of American politics.

js2 6y ago
I'm 48. My family had a newspaper subscription (in my case, the Miami Herald). I've been a consumer of news all my life, mostly print media. (My family rarely watched local news except for when a hurricane was headed our way, but would often watch programs like 60 minutes.) When was the news ever "Who, What, When, Where, Why?" It's always had a slant as long as I remember. Here's "the most trusted man in America" calling ror the U.S. to get out of Vietnam: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dn2RjahTi3M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dn2RjahTi3M What is that if not a partisan political opinion? The news has always chosen what and what not to report. Just deciding what is and isn't newsworthy is a political decision. Heck, my conservative friend used to read the Wall Street Journal. I'm talking when we were kids (10-12) I'd argue with him about whether Reagan was a good president. I thought even then he had a highly colored view of reality and I'm sure he thought the same of me. BTW, I don't think the problem is the press. I think it's a lack of open-mindedness, critical thinking, and healthy skepticism. We get what we deserve by not educating our kids better about how to consume information and consider view points outside their own worldview.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  But he was "the most trusted man in America". People across the political spectrum trusted him to reliably and accurately report what's what. There are figures like that today - Joe Rogan comes to mind - but I don't think anyone could become so trusted while adhering to the speech codes outlined in the article.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

bawolff 6y ago

Seems like optimizing for short term gains over long term sustainability. A mistake lots of businesses make.

xg15 6y ago

> But that's the way our economical system work. It assumes that the markets balances things out. Unfortunatly, the common good is not something most individuals prioritize, or even conceptualize, when buying things. I mean, those kinds of market failures are exactly what large parts of "the left" are frequently highlighting.

54351623 6y ago

I don't know, I think you'll wind up with a bunch of journalists charging independently to produce media, such as the author of the piece does or something like the kickstarters that produce long form docs.

titzer 6y ago

Your comments are only tangentially related and I suspect you did not read the article. It is not about the economics of the American Press, it's about the lynchmobs that have formed around thoughtcrime and the sometimes public hounding of people who don't push the proper narrative. There might be economic factors intertwined with the push for more groupthink, but I think there is a link missing in the chain of logic from this article's subject matter and your reply.

pwdisswordfish2 6y ago

How can we make serious news less expensive (to produce)? Reducing the cost could be one way to compete with "non-serious news".

tatersolid 6y ago
You can’t reduce the cost of “real journalism” by much. It takes lots of time and manual effort to find and vet sources, dual-source all facts, piece together the puzzle from sets of verified facts without making non-factual leaps. Then you have to actually write in such a way that the reader/viewer gets only a series of facts, and any inferences or opinion they draw should be their own. That ain’t cheap.

brownbat 6y ago

To echo your point, there was an Aspen festival panel a few years ago where a network news rep/owner was refreshingly honest. He said everyone thinks they want the news to be deeply insightful and informative, but the people who would consume that product tend to go out nights and do interesting things like attend ballets or go to museums, or go to things like the aspen festival. Or at least they are just reading a few articles online. They make news for the sort of people who just binge television news constantly. These people don't have a custom rss feed to make that efficient, and that is a special type of person. "We run the market test against PBS every night." If PBS started hitting numbers, every other station would jump to that model immediately.

andreskytt 6y ago

Interestingly, this market force seems to lead to media very similar to that of the USSR. The only thing currently missing (everybody agreeing with each other and adhering to a specific non-value-based narrative is there) is the media speaking on behalf of the people.

tsegratis 6y ago

I suppose the cause is society and news believing their opinion is truth. Rather than there being a truth worth seeking If only subjectivity is true, society must fragment. Everyone forms a different view -- unity is lost Do people just want to pay and read opinion. Or do they seek a reality truth The second goal will succeed no matter what newspapers do

7532yahoogmail 6y ago

>So they did the next best thing: they changed to please the market Slow down. This is the hackernews equivalent to "yada yada yadaing" over the real stuff. You say points big and silly you can't backup. I work at a business news organization, and know someone who just left WSJ. Now, think again how you'd tell them face to face they're niche? You're gonna tell them how the media business works? Like what are you going to say?Are you claiming FB is a new organization? In fact, are you really saying anything at all? Those issues are important, but what I find most concerning about your reply is "the way our economical system work". You're either not in management, are an incredibly crappy manager, or don't know anything about it. You do it for the money like some lame reach for that Tesla R&R refrain to argue for lower intellectual (ethics/morals) standards ... that's the beginning of the end for organizations ... what you fail to get is that other organizations who are not so easily sold your sale of good will be still doing the news and fighting the good fight. Those who understand money the best and make the most over the long term know best money is NOT the measure of all things.

eevilspock 6y ago

> Often, they actually can't, because their survival depend on more pressing day-to-day matters. I agree with you entirely except for this. For the poor, yes. But there are plenty of people the more pressing day-to-day matters is not survival but how to hoard even more wealth and advantage than they already have. Like sending their children to private schools despite that only exacerbating the already gross iniquities of life for poor children vs elite children. Or figuring out how to upgrade to an even nicer house or which gentrifying neighborhood will yield them the best returns in 10-20 years once it is fully taken over.