4 ms·

If we assume that newspapers goal is to sell papers to the maximum number of potential readers, this indicates a decline in general literacy / IQ of reading pop

by _red 6y ago

If we assume that newspapers goal is to sell papers to the maximum number of potential readers, this indicates a decline in general literacy / IQ of reading populace. Compare and contrast the average newspaper article written in say 1921 compared to now. The difference in comprehension level is pretty glaring.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
jonahx 6y ago
> If we assume that newspapers goal is to sell papers to the maximum number of potential readers, this indicates a decline in general literacy / IQ of reading populace. No doubt audiences are less well read today, but in theory this should motivate simpler, clearer writing, rather than the opaque, convoluted writing the article is (rightly) criticizing.
wegs 6y ago
Perhaps not. 1) "Potential readers" is limited to people who can afford newspapers. NY Times runs around $520 per year in paper, at 2020 printing and delivery costs, and around $100 digitally. Printing and delivery costs, as portion of GDP-per-capita, were much higher in 1921. In 1921, the audience was extremely exclusive. An online audience is more democratic, and ergo, less educated. 2) Newspapers aren't driven by selling papers, so much as by organizational dynamics. I need to satisfy my boss and my peers to keep my job. Sales is one aspect of that, and as organizations grow in size, a decreasing aspect. As far as I can tell, NY Times has hired a bunch of idiots, and a lot of the most competent reporters are heading fast for the door. Many companies which go under do so because of bad culture, often resulting from wildly misaligned incentives, good people leaving, bad people failing to bring in new good people, and so on. I think NY Times is slowly heading that way. I've seen few organizations able to claw back from where it is. Facebook and Google are moving in that direction too, for that matter.
Voxoff 6y ago
Really? Isn't it more likely that the fincancial motive translates to quicker, scrappier & less polished articles.
rsynnott 6y ago
The average person in 1921 certainly was not reading the New York Times, if they were reading anything (which is doubtful). In any case, the complaint being made (which I'm not sure that I buy) is that it's _more_ poorly written (and thus hard to read) today, not _less_.

by _red 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

jonahx 6y ago

> If we assume that newspapers goal is to sell papers to the maximum number of potential readers, this indicates a decline in general literacy / IQ of reading populace. No doubt audiences are less well read today, but in theory this should motivate simpler, clearer writing, rather than the opaque, convoluted writing the article is (rightly) criticizing.

wegs 6y ago

Perhaps not. 1) "Potential readers" is limited to people who can afford newspapers. NY Times runs around $520 per year in paper, at 2020 printing and delivery costs, and around $100 digitally. Printing and delivery costs, as portion of GDP-per-capita, were much higher in 1921. In 1921, the audience was extremely exclusive. An online audience is more democratic, and ergo, less educated. 2) Newspapers aren't driven by selling papers, so much as by organizational dynamics. I need to satisfy my boss and my peers to keep my job. Sales is one aspect of that, and as organizations grow in size, a decreasing aspect. As far as I can tell, NY Times has hired a bunch of idiots, and a lot of the most competent reporters are heading fast for the door. Many companies which go under do so because of bad culture, often resulting from wildly misaligned incentives, good people leaving, bad people failing to bring in new good people, and so on. I think NY Times is slowly heading that way. I've seen few organizations able to claw back from where it is. Facebook and Google are moving in that direction too, for that matter.

Voxoff 6y ago

Really? Isn't it more likely that the fincancial motive translates to quicker, scrappier & less polished articles.

rsynnott 6y ago

The average person in 1921 certainly was not reading the New York Times, if they were reading anything (which is doubtful). In any case, the complaint being made (which I'm not sure that I buy) is that it's _more_ poorly written (and thus hard to read) today, not _less_.