2 ms·
You (probably) won’t finish reading this story
- civilized 5y agoHe was right, but it's mainly because his writing (and most mass media) is uninteresting. Blah blah smartphones blah blah distraction blah blah crisis blah blah ad revenue. We've heard it all before. Maybe throw in the latest flimsy study of teen girls in crisis on Instagram if it's a Tuesday. Vox journalists think we're in a crisis because they think we aren't paying enough attention to their "important" writing. But I read newspapers decades ago, before we were supposedly distracted to death, and they were just as superficial and disposable as most Vox writing is today. Our attention didn't make journalism better at all. They want it because that's how they make money, not because they have anything to say. In contrast, I'll happily read every word of a long SSC/ACX post any day. Because I might learn something or be provoked to think. Some Vox articles are good too, in all fairness, but not the majority. My advice to journalists is to write fewer, better things. We don't need hundreds of institutions to cover the same event. We don't need hundreds of interchangeable takes on the latest hot book or Twitter controversy. If your job pushes you to crank out voluminous disposable writing, find another job.
- ttyprintk 5y agoI think Sean Illings’ Q-Anon stories are some of the best Vox content
- ttyprintk 5y agoIf we tested Attention Quotient rather than IQ, I wonder if we’d eventually correct some of the bias problems with both?