4 ms·

Actually it's a bit more complicated than that. Naval Ravikant had a tweet (sorry couldn't find it in a quick search) that said news became a commodity so repo

by rmason 6y ago

Actually it's a bit more complicated than that. Naval Ravikant had a tweet (sorry couldn't find it in a quick search) that said news became a commodity so reporters became partisans. If you want a great overview of where the news business is headed check out the first thirty minutes of yesterday's all-in podcast where they explain why they're adopting A16Z's new strategy of creating a channel themselves and freezing out reporters. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32ZD39tiKgc

wwweston 6y ago
Given that one can track the roots of present "movement conservative" partisan media back into the 80s (maybe even as far as Ailes' shortly-after-Nixon claim that he could have avoided impeachment with supportive media), and even that is hardly the first partisan media phenomenon in the history of US or even Western Culture... Ravikant's statement doesn't make sense as an analysis, unless there's a case that commodification we're talking about not only pre-dates the internet it's actually older than electric cities. (Ravikant's statement does make sense as a certain kind of evocation common to business/tech figures.)
aSockPuppeteer 6y ago
Thanks for posting the link. Getting tired of regular news sources. I liked how they discussed how much knowledge journalists have about a topic based on how many rewrites they do ending with 5 for 40% knowledge on a topic. The Gell-Mann amnesia effect was interesting also.
NotPavlovsDog 6y ago
Which reporters, which news is what I wonder. My org subscribes to multiple wires and we have an internal knowledge and intelligence sharing system. For the state dept and alphabet agencies, collecting and processing information, including news, is a serious investment of resources. They don't get the info they need from mass media. Same for traders, etc etc. Information needed by decision-makers is often lacking in the commodified news, which I would just call mass-consumer-culture news. So news in itself is not commodified. Mass culture news was always there to serve the interests of the channel, made up of content producers and distributors. An "early" internet example would be Arrington and TC. He was doing journalism and news as a means to get power, by dabbling in some delicious insider deals on the way to financial independence. What is interesting is the ideological clash between those three camps of journalism thought. Journalism should liberate and enlighten the unwashed masses, provide unbiased information, or serve the interest of the journalist and publisher. Somehow many don't see that one can and often is the other. But I find views such as in above article, with one agenda pushed above all others, behind even 18th century thought.

by rmason 6y ago

wwweston 6y ago

Given that one can track the roots of present "movement conservative" partisan media back into the 80s (maybe even as far as Ailes' shortly-after-Nixon claim that he could have avoided impeachment with supportive media), and even that is hardly the first partisan media phenomenon in the history of US or even Western Culture... Ravikant's statement doesn't make sense as an analysis, unless there's a case that commodification we're talking about not only pre-dates the internet it's actually older than electric cities. (Ravikant's statement does make sense as a certain kind of evocation common to business/tech figures.)

aSockPuppeteer 6y ago

Thanks for posting the link. Getting tired of regular news sources. I liked how they discussed how much knowledge journalists have about a topic based on how many rewrites they do ending with 5 for 40% knowledge on a topic. The Gell-Mann amnesia effect was interesting also.

NotPavlovsDog 6y ago

Which reporters, which news is what I wonder. My org subscribes to multiple wires and we have an internal knowledge and intelligence sharing system. For the state dept and alphabet agencies, collecting and processing information, including news, is a serious investment of resources. They don't get the info they need from mass media. Same for traders, etc etc. Information needed by decision-makers is often lacking in the commodified news, which I would just call mass-consumer-culture news. So news in itself is not commodified. Mass culture news was always there to serve the interests of the channel, made up of content producers and distributors. An "early" internet example would be Arrington and TC. He was doing journalism and news as a means to get power, by dabbling in some delicious insider deals on the way to financial independence. What is interesting is the ideological clash between those three camps of journalism thought. Journalism should liberate and enlighten the unwashed masses, provide unbiased information, or serve the interest of the journalist and publisher. Somehow many don't see that one can and often is the other. But I find views such as in above article, with one agenda pushed above all others, behind even 18th century thought.