3 ms·

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

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?