4 ms·

>I think a problem is that modern newspapers cater to an audience that’s expected to be very plugged in to the cultural and political topic of the day, or at le

>I think a problem is that modern newspapers cater to an audience that’s expected to be very plugged in to the cultural and political topic of the day, or at least fake it. Spot on. The point of this style of writing isn't to provide you with information about new events. The point is to provide framing/spin for people who are already familiar (albeit uperficially) with occurring events. At some point I stopped consuming news for several years. When I attempted to read NYT front page after that multi-year pause I couldn't understand a thing. All the titles and articles were referencing people and events I'm "supposed to" be familiar with.

keiferski 6y ago
I always thought the once a week Sunday paper format was a blessing in disguise. It forced writers to sum up the week in a way that anyone could pick up and understand. If you go to nytimes.com right now, there are a bunch of stories which are clearly in medias res. It feels like jumping into the 5th episode of a Netflix series.
- alisonkisk 6y ago
  People talk about "slow news". I'd like a weekly or monthly "current events" review more than news, except for major timely events like an election or natural disasters. What happened to "newsweek"?
  - relaxing 6y ago
    > What happened to "newsweek"? The internet happened, and it became The Daily Beast, and then it became a zombie publication with nothing in common with the old print edition.
yoz-y 6y ago
I have the same problem when talking politics with my father, or other people who follow the scene very closely. Instead of saying "the prime minister" or "the minister of education", they will use their names. Sometimes even for mayors or people who may have appeared on TV (which I don't watch) once. Like the author I feel exhausted and always have to ask who's who and why is that important. Of course one option is to get interested in politics, but already being very bad with names and faces I feel like it's a waste of time.
oehpr 6y ago
I never got on board with the news because of this. I can listen or read and article about it and never seem to grasp exactly what is being said. But! Whenever I see news agencies or publications write or talk about any subject on which I have a deep familiarity, all I see is either an idiotic mischaracterization of the facts, or blatantly manipulative spin. Every time I don't understand a subject, I don't learn anything, and when I do understand it, I'm appalled at what is being shown. To this day I scratch my head at how people can think watching prime time news or reading the newspaper is how you stay informed about the goings on of a society. And I'm not saying I have a better understanding of such, I don't. I just can't see how that information could be coming from the sources I'm told provide it.
- pas 6y ago
  Since everything is now observed/broadcasted/published in real-time, every development of any current event is BREAKING NEWS. But even if not breaking, certainly important. This boils down the current style of giving a long-form article (story!) to every new piece of information. And then to top it off sometimes a random smattering of these tidbits and factoids get crumpled together into a ball of front page articles, with "amazing production value". Big 4K pictures, a 3-4 paragraph intro, a personal touch, namedroppings. What's missing is "obviously" what social science is supposedly about. Models, hypotheses, data, and picking the best one. Sure, articles provide this in a very crude form, via stories, appeals to some authority (when they cite/interview a random Professor of X at University of Y, who of course happens to be the Random Dude Z Chair), sometimes there are even a few graphs too! However, it seems the main function of established media these days is to try to follow what's going on in the world and establish a record, ask questions, try to look/peer into the nasty machine of contemporary politics and power, scratch the surface, kick the tires, and so on. They are not really here to interpret and explain it.

keiferski 6y ago

I always thought the once a week Sunday paper format was a blessing in disguise. It forced writers to sum up the week in a way that anyone could pick up and understand. If you go to nytimes.com right now, there are a bunch of stories which are clearly in medias res. It feels like jumping into the 5th episode of a Netflix series.

alisonkisk 6y ago
People talk about "slow news". I'd like a weekly or monthly "current events" review more than news, except for major timely events like an election or natural disasters. What happened to "newsweek"?
- relaxing 6y ago
  > What happened to "newsweek"? The internet happened, and it became The Daily Beast, and then it became a zombie publication with nothing in common with the old print edition.

yoz-y 6y ago

I have the same problem when talking politics with my father, or other people who follow the scene very closely. Instead of saying "the prime minister" or "the minister of education", they will use their names. Sometimes even for mayors or people who may have appeared on TV (which I don't watch) once. Like the author I feel exhausted and always have to ask who's who and why is that important. Of course one option is to get interested in politics, but already being very bad with names and faces I feel like it's a waste of time.

oehpr 6y ago

I never got on board with the news because of this. I can listen or read and article about it and never seem to grasp exactly what is being said. But! Whenever I see news agencies or publications write or talk about any subject on which I have a deep familiarity, all I see is either an idiotic mischaracterization of the facts, or blatantly manipulative spin. Every time I don't understand a subject, I don't learn anything, and when I do understand it, I'm appalled at what is being shown. To this day I scratch my head at how people can think watching prime time news or reading the newspaper is how you stay informed about the goings on of a society. And I'm not saying I have a better understanding of such, I don't. I just can't see how that information could be coming from the sources I'm told provide it.

pas 6y ago
Since everything is now observed/broadcasted/published in real-time, every development of any current event is BREAKING NEWS. But even if not breaking, certainly important. This boils down the current style of giving a long-form article (story!) to every new piece of information. And then to top it off sometimes a random smattering of these tidbits and factoids get crumpled together into a ball of front page articles, with "amazing production value". Big 4K pictures, a 3-4 paragraph intro, a personal touch, namedroppings. What's missing is "obviously" what social science is supposedly about. Models, hypotheses, data, and picking the best one. Sure, articles provide this in a very crude form, via stories, appeals to some authority (when they cite/interview a random Professor of X at University of Y, who of course happens to be the Random Dude Z Chair), sometimes there are even a few graphs too! However, it seems the main function of established media these days is to try to follow what's going on in the world and establish a record, ask questions, try to look/peer into the nasty machine of contemporary politics and power, scratch the surface, kick the tires, and so on. They are not really here to interpret and explain it.