3 ms·

The article describes what's wrong with media, unless I've blanked on some ripping satire. What serious journalist would ever let themselves be quoted lamenting

The article describes what's wrong with media, unless I've blanked on some ripping satire. What serious journalist would ever let themselves be quoted lamenting, "The subjects are winning." It's like her extravagance knows no bounds or something. The headline occurs mid article and it's a good choice. When writing is about power, its job becomes to deliver narrative in that power struggle, and that means it's no longer good. Who wants to read that? Maybe these institutions are losing their influence because they suck at the one thing they were supposed to do well, which was produce compelling, brave, and thoughtful writing that people wanted to read so much they would tolerate advertisers. Maybe if they were more interesting, more people would read them?

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
> Maybe if they were more interesting, more people would read them? This is what caused the existing problem. We had a media where people mostly believed them because they mostly cared about telling the truth, issued corrections when they were wrong, were critical of both political parties etc. That media discovered that if they published outrage bait they got more clicks, because if something is outrageous and true then people are very interested. But things that are outrageous and true aren't all that common, so to keep the mill running they started publishing things that were outrageous and false. That works until people figure out that they are no longer the media they were thought to be. Because things that are outrageous and false are boring. Anybody can write outrageous fiction. That's how we got into this. But the more readers who figure that out, the less credibility they have, and the less anybody wants to read their made up accounts. Their existing solution seems to be to turn the dial up to eleven. So then everything is an existential threat and a hot war and literally Hitler. That whips up the frenzy for the people who still think what they're hearing bears some resemblance to the truth, but increases the number of people who realize it doesn't. Eventually you get a critical mass of people no longer interested in hearing fantastical conspiracies about everything and somebody realizes there is a market for objective journalism and makes a name for themselves. Then, with any luck, the others follow. One can hope.
itronitron 6y ago
It reinforces for me that journos still don't understand the dynamics and potential of the internet even twenty years later. People are starved for information but have little interest in mainstream's news preference for packaging it up and waxing philosophic in order to provide their 'objective view' of events. A social media platform that amplifies people's ability to vet information and that is also resistant to dishonest campaigning would provide an advantage to its participants.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

> Maybe if they were more interesting, more people would read them? This is what caused the existing problem. We had a media where people mostly believed them because they mostly cared about telling the truth, issued corrections when they were wrong, were critical of both political parties etc. That media discovered that if they published outrage bait they got more clicks, because if something is outrageous and true then people are very interested. But things that are outrageous and true aren't all that common, so to keep the mill running they started publishing things that were outrageous and false. That works until people figure out that they are no longer the media they were thought to be. Because things that are outrageous and false are boring. Anybody can write outrageous fiction. That's how we got into this. But the more readers who figure that out, the less credibility they have, and the less anybody wants to read their made up accounts. Their existing solution seems to be to turn the dial up to eleven. So then everything is an existential threat and a hot war and literally Hitler. That whips up the frenzy for the people who still think what they're hearing bears some resemblance to the truth, but increases the number of people who realize it doesn't. Eventually you get a critical mass of people no longer interested in hearing fantastical conspiracies about everything and somebody realizes there is a market for objective journalism and makes a name for themselves. Then, with any luck, the others follow. One can hope.

itronitron 6y ago

It reinforces for me that journos still don't understand the dynamics and potential of the internet even twenty years later. People are starved for information but have little interest in mainstream's news preference for packaging it up and waxing philosophic in order to provide their 'objective view' of events. A social media platform that amplifies people's ability to vet information and that is also resistant to dishonest campaigning would provide an advantage to its participants.