3 ms·

I think focusing just on the funding aspect alone is a mistake. A much more glaring issue stares the industry in the face: the people don't really want journali

by fleddr 5y ago

I think focusing just on the funding aspect alone is a mistake. A much more glaring issue stares the industry in the face: the people don't really want journalism. Meaning, they don't have the attention span for it in a world that is overloaded with information. We've been conditioned to snack size news for a long time now. And the trend is accelerating. Look at "stories", "fleets", Tiktok...all inventions for the viewer/reader to require even less effort to consume it. Extremely short form content, preferably even auto playing the next one. Further, in highly polarized times, few have the critical thinking skills to appreciate high quality journalism that questions their position or beliefs, it's much easier to see your bias confirmed. Nuance is for losers, outrage goes viral. No ethical ad will fix that.

PicassoCTs 5y ago
I think that is not true. People consume "complex" media, series with deep characters and huge arcs, personal and even with whole societys/communities. Journalism is just not willing to go the extra game-of-thrones mile.
- jay_kyburz 5y ago
  I agree, I think news media is to fixated on generating blocks of text that they can dump on a page or screen somewhere and forget. I would like to see news organizations build tools that help us understand and follow some of the most complex issues in our society. If my local news paper reexamined how they stored and then presented the information they already collect day to day, I would have an essential tool learning about and keeping track of what is going on in the world around me.
- autoexec 5y ago
  Fiction holds people's attention in ways that non-fiction isn't always able to, and that's true more for some people than for others, but works designed specifically to entertain tend to have wider appeal than works designed primarily to inform. Journalists have increasingly tried to present information as entertainment often at the expense of their own message and integrity. I'm not sure more infotainment is the solution.
caconym_ 5y ago
The desire to maximize ad revenue drives the decisions to make these platforms more addictive and less substantial. So this is arguably something that's been done to users--not something they wanted. Sure, some people are more interested in substantial and nuanced content than others, but putting the blame on consumers here feels a bit like blaming patients for the opioid epidemic.
- fleddr 5y ago
  Blame is a strong word, it's massive shifts in consumer behavior. I assume you know news rooms got decimated? When I grew up, every household had a newspaper subscription, costing the equivalent of perhaps 200$ per year. Virtually all that revenue is gone, replaced by extremely difficult to monetize internet users. News organizations typically are tiny and poor now, not rich and powerful. The ecosystem of smaller local news organizations nearing extinction. Ads combined with maximizing views are the last thing to leave the lights on. Are consumer to blame? No. But they stopped paying for news for sure.
  - iamstupidsimple 5y ago
    +1 It's not just subscriptions, but the classifieds - which were considered 'rivers of gold'. The business model of the news industry was hollowed out by the internet. https://theconversation.com/as-the-rivers-of-gold-dry-up-what-business-model-will-save-media-7956 https://theconversation.com/as-the-rivers-of-gold-dry-up-wha...
    - wombatpm 5y ago
      Craigslist killed the classified ads business. And now Facebook Marketplace is killing Craigslist.
    - fleddr 5y ago
      Indeed! And I'll add one other massive change... In the paper news era, people were much more likely to read in-depth articles. Not necessarily because people were smarter or more intellectually curious, instead because...well, it was pretty much the only information available for the day. You utilize the information because you consider it valuable based on it being scarce. Needless to say, we have the opposite problem now. There's an information overdose and we're extremely selective in what we chose to read. And quite obviously, snack-size wins. Most people now would find it a massive commitment to spend an hour to read and process a detailed article. The few that do, likely check their phone 10 times during this enormous investment of their time.

by fleddr 5y ago

PicassoCTs 5y ago

I think that is not true. People consume "complex" media, series with deep characters and huge arcs, personal and even with whole societys/communities. Journalism is just not willing to go the extra game-of-thrones mile.

jay_kyburz 5y ago
I agree, I think news media is to fixated on generating blocks of text that they can dump on a page or screen somewhere and forget. I would like to see news organizations build tools that help us understand and follow some of the most complex issues in our society. If my local news paper reexamined how they stored and then presented the information they already collect day to day, I would have an essential tool learning about and keeping track of what is going on in the world around me.
autoexec 5y ago
Fiction holds people's attention in ways that non-fiction isn't always able to, and that's true more for some people than for others, but works designed specifically to entertain tend to have wider appeal than works designed primarily to inform. Journalists have increasingly tried to present information as entertainment often at the expense of their own message and integrity. I'm not sure more infotainment is the solution.

caconym_ 5y ago

The desire to maximize ad revenue drives the decisions to make these platforms more addictive and less substantial. So this is arguably something that's been done to users--not something they wanted. Sure, some people are more interested in substantial and nuanced content than others, but putting the blame on consumers here feels a bit like blaming patients for the opioid epidemic.

fleddr 5y ago
Blame is a strong word, it's massive shifts in consumer behavior. I assume you know news rooms got decimated? When I grew up, every household had a newspaper subscription, costing the equivalent of perhaps 200$ per year. Virtually all that revenue is gone, replaced by extremely difficult to monetize internet users. News organizations typically are tiny and poor now, not rich and powerful. The ecosystem of smaller local news organizations nearing extinction. Ads combined with maximizing views are the last thing to leave the lights on. Are consumer to blame? No. But they stopped paying for news for sure.
- iamstupidsimple 5y ago
  +1 It's not just subscriptions, but the classifieds - which were considered 'rivers of gold'. The business model of the news industry was hollowed out by the internet. https://theconversation.com/as-the-rivers-of-gold-dry-up-what-business-model-will-save-media-7956 https://theconversation.com/as-the-rivers-of-gold-dry-up-wha...
  - wombatpm 5y ago
    Craigslist killed the classified ads business. And now Facebook Marketplace is killing Craigslist.
  - fleddr 5y ago
    Indeed! And I'll add one other massive change... In the paper news era, people were much more likely to read in-depth articles. Not necessarily because people were smarter or more intellectually curious, instead because...well, it was pretty much the only information available for the day. You utilize the information because you consider it valuable based on it being scarce. Needless to say, we have the opposite problem now. There's an information overdose and we're extremely selective in what we chose to read. And quite obviously, snack-size wins. Most people now would find it a massive commitment to spend an hour to read and process a detailed article. The few that do, likely check their phone 10 times during this enormous investment of their time.