3 ms·
You can argue over what should be considered “news”, but updates and commentary on new events are now distributed online by anyone, outside of print periodicals
by alexmingoia 6y ago
You can argue over what should be considered “news”, but updates and commentary on new events are now distributed online by anyone, outside of print periodicals.
For example, video game streamers I follow on YouTube reacting to new game trailers is news to me. It’s how I learn of upcoming games, among other things.
The NYT and similar periodicals are no longer the gatekeepers of distributing new information and commentary.
They can compete in the new information landscape, but they no longer define it.
Journalists no longer need the periodical, they can work for themselves and distribute through Twitter, newsletters, etc.
- cgriswald 6y agoYou’ve just reiterated your point while missing mine. Random people lack trust and access. I agree we don’t necessarily need The New York Times or whoever for trust and access, but we need something. In your example you’ve added a gatekeeper. If no one reacts to a trailer, you don’t know it exists. And in return you get neither trust—real companies don’t generally create trailers for fake products and if they did your gatekeeper might still react to it—nor access—the trailers are freely available, probably on the same platform you’re viewing the reactions on.