6 ms·

> In my opinion, once-objective mainstream journalism is now about writing content to please target audiences and catch trending topics on social media, as well

> In my opinion, once-objective mainstream journalism is now about writing content to please target audiences and catch trending topics on social media, as well as keep fast cycles going to appease the algorithms on news aggregation sites and search engines. That’s an awfully cynical take when all you have to ask is how these publications could stay afloat without drawing readers in. They’re in a tough spot when people are opting for their Facebook feed over paying for articles from proper journalists.

benlumen 6y ago
I'm not suggesting they had a choice - I believe they had to do it to survive. But there is now a void for the objective journalism of old. It's why I'm excited about the resurgence of the newsletter model - if journalists don't need to catch passing trade and can instead rely on being delivered direct, perhaps the incentives that have skewed their writing so much can be mitigated.
- bilbo0s 6y ago
  "But there is now a void for the objective journalism of old." I don't know man? Many have tried, all have failed. Even newsletters, in the end, write what readers want to hear. Some of the most radical and extremist information out there, is disseminated by newsletters. I think OP hit on the crux of the issue, technology, or "the smartphone" if you want to pin it on that, has changed not only methods of consumption, but consumption behavior and expectations on a fundamental level. And I think that applies to all media, not only news. The seeming efficiency of information and media delivery on a smartphone just makes us think differently about the value of information and media. We start wanting the information we want, and we start blocking the information we don't want. After a while, information and media we don't want won't even show up for us. It's massively efficient customer service on a global scale. I'm not sure what can reasonably be done about it?
phkahler 6y ago
>> That’s an awfully cynical take when all you have to ask is how these publications could stay afloat without drawing readers in Cynical? It seems accurate to me, and you even say they're in a tough spot. The sad part is whatever drove them this direction is destroying them, but I think it came from inside, not twitter.
- pharke 6y ago
  It came from inside as far as their failure to adapt to a new ecosystem. They're still stuck in the print mindset where they think that a newspaper should be words printed on a page. They're stuck in the printing press mindset when they need to be in the digital media mindset. If they want to re-capture their audience they need to put their journalists to work creating more audio content that people can consume in their "found time" along with their other podcasts. They have the infrastructure to one up everyone in this field. If a journalist were to apply the same techniques of deep research, interviews with relevant sources, and the basic footwork necessary to find newsworthy material they could take their market back. People would pay for a subscription to a "paper" that was actually a basket of well researched and news-breaking podcasts. For God's sake though don't invite the radio and TV people in, just throw out your goddamn typewriter already and get a decent microphone and do it yourself.
  - bilbo0s 6y ago
    Again, just pointing out in fairness that places like NPR and CSpan do the sort of thing your comment suggests. I think some people might listen to NPR in their car, some may even donate, but I'm not sure how many people would pay enough to fund the groundwork necessary for stories like the Wirecard series for instance. In the end, that sort of journalism may need to rely on donations. We're simply no longer wired to pay for that sort of information and media. If everyone changed at once, we might be retrained to pay, but I doubt that would happen.
  - soco 6y ago
    I see that donation model turning out pretty swell for The Guardian. There might be more, no idea...
  - TeaDrunk 6y ago
    "If they want to re-capture their audience they need to put their journalists to work creating more audio content that people can consume in their "found time" along with their other podcasts." At least the NYT has a daily podcast, an updating podcast on the impeachment (when the impeachment happened), a podcast series on engagement algorithms in radicalizing people, I think several more. The Atlantic, The Daily Beast, NPR (So many NPR podcasts), etc. also have podcasts. I think podcasts are well covered and this argument is coming from a place of ignorance.
dahfizz 6y ago
Implicit in your comment is the idea that mainstream media needs to survive. The news corporations chose money over morals. They decided to become clickbait tabloids to chase ad revenue. I don't think anything of value would be lost if we saw some of these media giants go under.
- ben_w 6y ago
  I believe that some kind of free investigative press, one which the electorate pays attention to, is a requisite for anything that can be reasonably called a democracy. I would go further than you and say that publishing fiction based loosely on current events under the guise of “news” has negative utility, and much would be gained by getting rid of it. That said, I don’t know how to solve this! It — along with every other case where capitalism produces suboptimal outcomes — is an example of Goodhart's law, so the issue will come back fast if we tried any simple and obvious solutions.
  - dahfizz 6y ago
    I think what is needed is a change of perspective around news / media. IMO, the money and the passion is there. I don't see why there can't be an NRA / Sierra Club / Red Cross type organization for true investigative, insightful, trustworthy journalism. The issue is that people can already get "news" for free, so they wouldn't see the need to support such an organization. We as a society need to rebrand Fox, CNN, etc as current events based entertainment media.
  - baddox 6y ago
    I won't pretend to be an expert or even necessarily a proponent, but it's worth nothing that there are public broadcasting agencies that supposedly are independent of government other than being legally bound to certain journalistic standards.
- munificent 6y ago
  In a capitalistic ecosystem where the fitness function is profitability, the only organizations that survive are the ones that choose money. Choosing morals simply means you'll be outcompeted and go out of business. > I don't think anything of value would be lost if we saw some of these media giants go under. I do. Democracy requires citizens to know the facts at a level of understanding that is actionable. It takes a lot of work and skill to distill the chaos of mass human behavior into something that voters can make sense of and journalists are the closest we have to experts at that process.
etangent 6y ago
> They’re in a tough spot when people are opting for their Facebook feed over paying for articles from proper journalists. Indeed, because they are in such a tough spot, it suggests that they might be pushing towards doing unethical things in order to stay afloat.
gowld 6y ago
If journalism dies, that's awful, but no reason to support the anti-journalism garbage that replaces it. WaPo and NYT dishonest political activism is far far worse than BuzzFeed's entertainment listicles.

benlumen 6y ago

I'm not suggesting they had a choice - I believe they had to do it to survive. But there is now a void for the objective journalism of old. It's why I'm excited about the resurgence of the newsletter model - if journalists don't need to catch passing trade and can instead rely on being delivered direct, perhaps the incentives that have skewed their writing so much can be mitigated.

bilbo0s 6y ago
"But there is now a void for the objective journalism of old." I don't know man? Many have tried, all have failed. Even newsletters, in the end, write what readers want to hear. Some of the most radical and extremist information out there, is disseminated by newsletters. I think OP hit on the crux of the issue, technology, or "the smartphone" if you want to pin it on that, has changed not only methods of consumption, but consumption behavior and expectations on a fundamental level. And I think that applies to all media, not only news. The seeming efficiency of information and media delivery on a smartphone just makes us think differently about the value of information and media. We start wanting the information we want, and we start blocking the information we don't want. After a while, information and media we don't want won't even show up for us. It's massively efficient customer service on a global scale. I'm not sure what can reasonably be done about it?

phkahler 6y ago

>> That’s an awfully cynical take when all you have to ask is how these publications could stay afloat without drawing readers in Cynical? It seems accurate to me, and you even say they're in a tough spot. The sad part is whatever drove them this direction is destroying them, but I think it came from inside, not twitter.

pharke 6y ago
It came from inside as far as their failure to adapt to a new ecosystem. They're still stuck in the print mindset where they think that a newspaper should be words printed on a page. They're stuck in the printing press mindset when they need to be in the digital media mindset. If they want to re-capture their audience they need to put their journalists to work creating more audio content that people can consume in their "found time" along with their other podcasts. They have the infrastructure to one up everyone in this field. If a journalist were to apply the same techniques of deep research, interviews with relevant sources, and the basic footwork necessary to find newsworthy material they could take their market back. People would pay for a subscription to a "paper" that was actually a basket of well researched and news-breaking podcasts. For God's sake though don't invite the radio and TV people in, just throw out your goddamn typewriter already and get a decent microphone and do it yourself.
- bilbo0s 6y ago
  Again, just pointing out in fairness that places like NPR and CSpan do the sort of thing your comment suggests. I think some people might listen to NPR in their car, some may even donate, but I'm not sure how many people would pay enough to fund the groundwork necessary for stories like the Wirecard series for instance. In the end, that sort of journalism may need to rely on donations. We're simply no longer wired to pay for that sort of information and media. If everyone changed at once, we might be retrained to pay, but I doubt that would happen.
- soco 6y ago
  I see that donation model turning out pretty swell for The Guardian. There might be more, no idea...
- TeaDrunk 6y ago
  "If they want to re-capture their audience they need to put their journalists to work creating more audio content that people can consume in their "found time" along with their other podcasts." At least the NYT has a daily podcast, an updating podcast on the impeachment (when the impeachment happened), a podcast series on engagement algorithms in radicalizing people, I think several more. The Atlantic, The Daily Beast, NPR (So many NPR podcasts), etc. also have podcasts. I think podcasts are well covered and this argument is coming from a place of ignorance.

dahfizz 6y ago

Implicit in your comment is the idea that mainstream media needs to survive. The news corporations chose money over morals. They decided to become clickbait tabloids to chase ad revenue. I don't think anything of value would be lost if we saw some of these media giants go under.

ben_w 6y ago
I believe that some kind of free investigative press, one which the electorate pays attention to, is a requisite for anything that can be reasonably called a democracy. I would go further than you and say that publishing fiction based loosely on current events under the guise of “news” has negative utility, and much would be gained by getting rid of it. That said, I don’t know how to solve this! It — along with every other case where capitalism produces suboptimal outcomes — is an example of Goodhart's law, so the issue will come back fast if we tried any simple and obvious solutions.
- dahfizz 6y ago
  I think what is needed is a change of perspective around news / media. IMO, the money and the passion is there. I don't see why there can't be an NRA / Sierra Club / Red Cross type organization for true investigative, insightful, trustworthy journalism. The issue is that people can already get "news" for free, so they wouldn't see the need to support such an organization. We as a society need to rebrand Fox, CNN, etc as current events based entertainment media.
- baddox 6y ago
  I won't pretend to be an expert or even necessarily a proponent, but it's worth nothing that there are public broadcasting agencies that supposedly are independent of government other than being legally bound to certain journalistic standards.
munificent 6y ago
In a capitalistic ecosystem where the fitness function is profitability, the only organizations that survive are the ones that choose money. Choosing morals simply means you'll be outcompeted and go out of business. > I don't think anything of value would be lost if we saw some of these media giants go under. I do. Democracy requires citizens to know the facts at a level of understanding that is actionable. It takes a lot of work and skill to distill the chaos of mass human behavior into something that voters can make sense of and journalists are the closest we have to experts at that process.

etangent 6y ago

> They’re in a tough spot when people are opting for their Facebook feed over paying for articles from proper journalists. Indeed, because they are in such a tough spot, it suggests that they might be pushing towards doing unethical things in order to stay afloat.

gowld 6y ago

If journalism dies, that's awful, but no reason to support the anti-journalism garbage that replaces it. WaPo and NYT dishonest political activism is far far worse than BuzzFeed's entertainment listicles.