5 ms·

If you're a penny-pinching American news channel, a panel of pundits is a lot cheaper than having somebody in the field, whether that's a field correspondent or

by beloch 6y ago

If you're a penny-pinching American news channel, a panel of pundits is a lot cheaper than having somebody in the field, whether that's a field correspondent or just a freelancer. Every time something happens in some far-flung corner of the globe you need new people and equipment on the spot, but your in-house pundits are always ready to show up to the studio and bloviate. Talking about other people's reporting is cheaper than doing your own reporting. The question is, can American news conglomerates not afford to do proper reporting, or have they just found that it's more profitable to leave that to others? To put it another way, if we found ways to bring more money back into journalism (e.g. By making companies like Google and facebook to pay for news content), how much of that money is likely to be spent on actual reporting? I have a sinking feeling that the pundits are here to stay.

fma 6y ago
That's an interesting observation and in hindsight obvious. Back in the day we had news in the morning...news at noon and then some nightly news. The major networks (ABC, NBC) would play other random TV shows the rest of the time and make money. Now with 24/x7 news...they literally need to fill the time with some form of "news" and as you pointed out...pundits was their solution.
- Consultant32452 6y ago
  Let's not forget the FaceBook effect. Once news companies started getting instant feedback on their views via countable clicks/shares, it really showed them where the money is. A website starts up that just shows police brutality, gets millions of shares. Guess what's making the news? Now comes SEO style key-word packing. Lots of shares on police brutality? And racism? And lgbtq? Well, here's my cross-sectional news story that contains racist police brutality against lgbtq and even though the police officer was a minority this really just demonstrates internalized white supremacy.
  - watwut 6y ago
    "if it bleeds it leads" predates facebook.
    - TeMPOraL 6y ago
      It's not the individual principles that changed, it's the feedback loop that has tightened.
rubicon33 6y ago
It makes me wonder if there's a business opportunity here. A beautiful app / website, that functions perfectly, and is basically a netflix for real journalism... The company itseld would be the one doing the journalism, and providing the app. Similary to how netflix has "netflix originals". Payed service.
- ativzzz 6y ago
  What you're describing is just an online newspaper. There's a reason most newspapers can't survive this way: people aren't willing to pay a monthly subscription.
  - rubicon33 6y ago
    Maybe, but: a) I'm describing a video service. Not text. I think that makes a huge difference. b) How do you explain Apple News? Personally I have no idea if they're profitable but they seem to be betting on news subscriptions being worth while.
    - jimmygrapes 6y ago
      I believe that some attempts have been tried, at least in the general area of what you are proposing. Far as I can tell they have all been labeled conspiracy theorists, alt-right white supremacist fake news nazis, left wing radical SJW eco-fascists, or some other combination of epithets and denigration. And all it takes is for one of those labels to be plausible for a single article or contributor before some aspect. of the internet hive mind (incapable of forgiveness, nuance, or contextual interpretation) latches on and never lets go.
    - alisonatwork 6y ago
      This kind of exists in the US as Unicorn Riot. There are some other alt/indie news sites that operate the same way. They're far from unbiased sources in what they choose to cover, but I think that's a given when you're working with so little capital to begin with. Well-funded sites that can afford to send reporters out to cover "everything" will probably end up being biased in a different way, given the sorts of people who have enough money to fund a global outfit.
adventured 6y ago
I agree that the fraud that is the mainstream news media in the US today is not going anywhere, and it'll probably keep sinking lower. They made their decision a long time ago and will hold to it, they're not going to turn back now. That said, I think there's an enormous demand for straight-forward news reporting with no opinionized, psycho partisan bullshit forced into it. CNN used to represent that in its early days for example, and they've gradually rotted away over decades. I don't see why somebody doesn't build this, it's right there begging to be done. Sign a deal with Reuters and a few other straight forward news gathering services, as the originating sources. Set up a Substack and a YouTube channel, and start reporting just the facts, with a couple of people on YouTube reporting the news from behind an anchor desk. Avoid the old media and their networks, publish as direct as possible. And if YouTube gets so bad with their creeping censorship that they start trying to ban reality, shift to self-hosting after you get initial momentum. Anyone that can do that has my attention. It would be trivial to get started.
- 1cvmask 6y ago
  Reuters and others (BBC, Bellingcat etc) receive payoffs and instructions from the British government to craft and manufacture propaganda, narratives and storytelling: https://www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2021/02/28/unsurprisingly-leaked-files-confirm-the-foreign-office-coordinates-multi-agency-propaganda-programmes/ https://www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2021/02/28/unsurprising...
  - johneth 6y ago
    Citing The Canary probably won't help your argument.
vinay427 6y ago
Soledad O'Brien is a former cable news insider who also makes this point of pundits serving as a cheaper alternative, in an interview she did with Trevor Noah [1]. [1] Around 4:35 at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8hnifYOlNs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8hnifYOlNs
einpoklum 6y ago
"I have a sinking feeling" Perhaps you're also feeling kind of ever-green? :-P
ImprovedSilence 6y ago
To me it feels like every outlet is also more about persuasion than news. Its subtly (or not so much at times) bringing its viewers into increasingly dividing modes of thought. And at times i bet purposely avoiding stories that inconveniently contrast to their leanings. A subset of the population picks up on this, and loses trust in whats being reported. There is also some bit of resentment to the media, because sometimes they act in a way that says “we know whats best for you, so we wont give you all the information to all angles of this story”

by beloch 6y ago

fma 6y ago

That's an interesting observation and in hindsight obvious. Back in the day we had news in the morning...news at noon and then some nightly news. The major networks (ABC, NBC) would play other random TV shows the rest of the time and make money. Now with 24/x7 news...they literally need to fill the time with some form of "news" and as you pointed out...pundits was their solution.

Consultant32452 6y ago
Let's not forget the FaceBook effect. Once news companies started getting instant feedback on their views via countable clicks/shares, it really showed them where the money is. A website starts up that just shows police brutality, gets millions of shares. Guess what's making the news? Now comes SEO style key-word packing. Lots of shares on police brutality? And racism? And lgbtq? Well, here's my cross-sectional news story that contains racist police brutality against lgbtq and even though the police officer was a minority this really just demonstrates internalized white supremacy.
- watwut 6y ago
  "if it bleeds it leads" predates facebook.
  - TeMPOraL 6y ago
    It's not the individual principles that changed, it's the feedback loop that has tightened.

rubicon33 6y ago

It makes me wonder if there's a business opportunity here. A beautiful app / website, that functions perfectly, and is basically a netflix for real journalism... The company itseld would be the one doing the journalism, and providing the app. Similary to how netflix has "netflix originals". Payed service.

ativzzz 6y ago
What you're describing is just an online newspaper. There's a reason most newspapers can't survive this way: people aren't willing to pay a monthly subscription.
- rubicon33 6y ago
  Maybe, but: a) I'm describing a video service. Not text. I think that makes a huge difference. b) How do you explain Apple News? Personally I have no idea if they're profitable but they seem to be betting on news subscriptions being worth while.
  - jimmygrapes 6y ago
    I believe that some attempts have been tried, at least in the general area of what you are proposing. Far as I can tell they have all been labeled conspiracy theorists, alt-right white supremacist fake news nazis, left wing radical SJW eco-fascists, or some other combination of epithets and denigration. And all it takes is for one of those labels to be plausible for a single article or contributor before some aspect. of the internet hive mind (incapable of forgiveness, nuance, or contextual interpretation) latches on and never lets go.
  - alisonatwork 6y ago
    This kind of exists in the US as Unicorn Riot. There are some other alt/indie news sites that operate the same way. They're far from unbiased sources in what they choose to cover, but I think that's a given when you're working with so little capital to begin with. Well-funded sites that can afford to send reporters out to cover "everything" will probably end up being biased in a different way, given the sorts of people who have enough money to fund a global outfit.

adventured 6y ago

I agree that the fraud that is the mainstream news media in the US today is not going anywhere, and it'll probably keep sinking lower. They made their decision a long time ago and will hold to it, they're not going to turn back now. That said, I think there's an enormous demand for straight-forward news reporting with no opinionized, psycho partisan bullshit forced into it. CNN used to represent that in its early days for example, and they've gradually rotted away over decades. I don't see why somebody doesn't build this, it's right there begging to be done. Sign a deal with Reuters and a few other straight forward news gathering services, as the originating sources. Set up a Substack and a YouTube channel, and start reporting just the facts, with a couple of people on YouTube reporting the news from behind an anchor desk. Avoid the old media and their networks, publish as direct as possible. And if YouTube gets so bad with their creeping censorship that they start trying to ban reality, shift to self-hosting after you get initial momentum. Anyone that can do that has my attention. It would be trivial to get started.

1cvmask 6y ago
Reuters and others (BBC, Bellingcat etc) receive payoffs and instructions from the British government to craft and manufacture propaganda, narratives and storytelling: https://www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2021/02/28/unsurprisingly-leaked-files-confirm-the-foreign-office-coordinates-multi-agency-propaganda-programmes/ https://www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2021/02/28/unsurprising...
- johneth 6y ago
  Citing The Canary probably won't help your argument.

vinay427 6y ago

Soledad O'Brien is a former cable news insider who also makes this point of pundits serving as a cheaper alternative, in an interview she did with Trevor Noah [1]. [1] Around 4:35 at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8hnifYOlNs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8hnifYOlNs

einpoklum 6y ago

"I have a sinking feeling" Perhaps you're also feeling kind of ever-green? :-P

ImprovedSilence 6y ago

To me it feels like every outlet is also more about persuasion than news. Its subtly (or not so much at times) bringing its viewers into increasingly dividing modes of thought. And at times i bet purposely avoiding stories that inconveniently contrast to their leanings. A subset of the population picks up on this, and loses trust in whats being reported. There is also some bit of resentment to the media, because sometimes they act in a way that says “we know whats best for you, so we wont give you all the information to all angles of this story”