4 ms·

It's insane to me just how much of the news content is taken directly from Twitter while newsrooms and investigative journalism is systematically defunded. How

by tspike 6y ago

It's insane to me just how much of the news content is taken directly from Twitter while newsrooms and investigative journalism is systematically defunded. How can this be reversed?

iask 6y ago
Sadly, I believe it’s too late. Attention span is getting shorter for many. Not many would want to scroll a news article. These days almost everyone I speak with is saying they’re busy, not enough time. So, where would they even find time to watch a 30-60 minute newscast. Which is why Twitter is probably the GoTo for news.
- searchableguy 6y ago
  I don't buy this completely. I see an enormous amount of redundancy to fill space in newspapers and online news media. An article from vice on any company will mention at least three of their own previous posts and rehash company evil before getting to the point. They will add a paragraph full of questions with no answers and another one for speculations that are only somewhat related. Why bother with that when you can get to the point using a small tweet? There is something online news agencies are doing wrong otherwise you wouldn't see so many startups opening news sumarizers, curation etc.
  - iask 6y ago
    That is also true. I would come across an article that interest me, however, there’s so much fluff that I would scroll 2-3 times and then just move on.
debacle 6y ago
People pay for the real value of valuable news.
- mark_l_watson 6y ago
  +1 I agree I pay $5/month to get Matt Taibbi’s emails, usually about two a month with in depth research and reporting. In general I like to spend about five minutes a day quickly reviewing news on Apple News+. Otherwise I read good books, with a little time on HN. I use Twitter and FB for shamelessly plugging my books. Anyway, this works for me.
adrianN 6y ago
It probably can't. Why pay a journalist to do deep investigation if you get just as many page views for copypasting Twitter?
- NegatioN 6y ago
  As a counter-argument, maybe the thing people are willing to pay for is the insights of a single individual (like https://www.gwern.net/ https://www.gwern.net/ which makes a decent chunk of money from patreon), not the entire organization (such as a news paper?) There's always going to be people who're interested in insightful, well researched articles and opinions. Isn't a part of the problem connecting these people, to the actual individuals doing posting in a more transparent way than a news-paper? Having this as the default would pose problems of it's own, and make some of the deeper journalism requiring months/years to complete more difficult though.
  - searchableguy 6y ago
    Gwern doesn't earn much on patreon for his work. It's also totally different than most journalists who push out stories left and right on topics they have layman understanding of. The quality and depth of work is significantly higher. I would pay for news reporting from gwern than random journalist.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
jb775 6y ago
You have it backwards. News content is now being reported directly via Twitter, because the newsrooms and journalists have proven they can't be trusted. They were never "defunded", their customers left because the product is low quality and biased.
- save_ferris 6y ago
  News content is being reported directly on Twitter because the internet spoiled consumers into not having to pay for reporting. The online advertising model effectively did "defund" publications by forcing them to write low-quality content that people would click on instead of paying for.
  - WilTimSon 6y ago
    It's also being reported there because it's an insanely fast way to reach people. Instead of them having to check the news organization's main page to see if anything happened, they can subscribe to their account on Twitter, turn on notifications and get it the moment it breaks. Granted, Twitter is still a horrible place for long-form news (which is why it links to the full articles) and an even worse one for discussions. Which is why a different platform for instant updates could be beneficial, since news will have to adapt anyway.
    - jobigoud 6y ago
      > Instead of them having to check the news organization's main page to see if anything happened, they can subscribe to their account on Twitter, turn on notifications and get it the moment it breaks. If only there was a really simple way to syndicate all this content that all websites could follow and multiple clients could consume...
      - WilTimSon 6y ago
        There is but, realistically, people have moved away from it. Getting someone to try a new thing is hard. Getting someone to go back to an old thing once they're hooked on a new one is harder.
criddell 6y ago
Maybe there should be a per-user tax on large social media platforms that is redistributed to news organizations and journalists?

by tspike 6y ago

It's insane to me just how much of the news content is taken directly from Twitter while newsrooms and investigative journalism is systematically defunded. How can this be reversed?

iask 6y ago

Sadly, I believe it’s too late. Attention span is getting shorter for many. Not many would want to scroll a news article. These days almost everyone I speak with is saying they’re busy, not enough time. So, where would they even find time to watch a 30-60 minute newscast. Which is why Twitter is probably the GoTo for news.

searchableguy 6y ago
I don't buy this completely. I see an enormous amount of redundancy to fill space in newspapers and online news media. An article from vice on any company will mention at least three of their own previous posts and rehash company evil before getting to the point. They will add a paragraph full of questions with no answers and another one for speculations that are only somewhat related. Why bother with that when you can get to the point using a small tweet? There is something online news agencies are doing wrong otherwise you wouldn't see so many startups opening news sumarizers, curation etc.
- iask 6y ago
  That is also true. I would come across an article that interest me, however, there’s so much fluff that I would scroll 2-3 times and then just move on.

debacle 6y ago

People pay for the real value of valuable news.

mark_l_watson 6y ago
+1 I agree I pay $5/month to get Matt Taibbi’s emails, usually about two a month with in depth research and reporting. In general I like to spend about five minutes a day quickly reviewing news on Apple News+. Otherwise I read good books, with a little time on HN. I use Twitter and FB for shamelessly plugging my books. Anyway, this works for me.

adrianN 6y ago

It probably can't. Why pay a journalist to do deep investigation if you get just as many page views for copypasting Twitter?

NegatioN 6y ago
As a counter-argument, maybe the thing people are willing to pay for is the insights of a single individual (like https://www.gwern.net/ https://www.gwern.net/ which makes a decent chunk of money from patreon), not the entire organization (such as a news paper?) There's always going to be people who're interested in insightful, well researched articles and opinions. Isn't a part of the problem connecting these people, to the actual individuals doing posting in a more transparent way than a news-paper? Having this as the default would pose problems of it's own, and make some of the deeper journalism requiring months/years to complete more difficult though.
- searchableguy 6y ago
  Gwern doesn't earn much on patreon for his work. It's also totally different than most journalists who push out stories left and right on topics they have layman understanding of. The quality and depth of work is significantly higher. I would pay for news reporting from gwern than random journalist.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

jb775 6y ago

You have it backwards. News content is now being reported directly via Twitter, because the newsrooms and journalists have proven they can't be trusted. They were never "defunded", their customers left because the product is low quality and biased.

save_ferris 6y ago
News content is being reported directly on Twitter because the internet spoiled consumers into not having to pay for reporting. The online advertising model effectively did "defund" publications by forcing them to write low-quality content that people would click on instead of paying for.
- WilTimSon 6y ago
  It's also being reported there because it's an insanely fast way to reach people. Instead of them having to check the news organization's main page to see if anything happened, they can subscribe to their account on Twitter, turn on notifications and get it the moment it breaks. Granted, Twitter is still a horrible place for long-form news (which is why it links to the full articles) and an even worse one for discussions. Which is why a different platform for instant updates could be beneficial, since news will have to adapt anyway.
  - jobigoud 6y ago
    > Instead of them having to check the news organization's main page to see if anything happened, they can subscribe to their account on Twitter, turn on notifications and get it the moment it breaks. If only there was a really simple way to syndicate all this content that all websites could follow and multiple clients could consume...
    - WilTimSon 6y ago
      There is but, realistically, people have moved away from it. Getting someone to try a new thing is hard. Getting someone to go back to an old thing once they're hooked on a new one is harder.

criddell 6y ago

Maybe there should be a per-user tax on large social media platforms that is redistributed to news organizations and journalists?