5 ms·

Is the author's claim that modern journalism doesn't contain enough feel-good human interest stories?

ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago
No. The author indicated that the exceptional (and it was, indeed, "exceptional") generosity and sense of Duty, exhibited by the townsfolk was ignored by the press. It was probably a bit "whiny," but it was not incorrect. I do feel that publicizing examples of generosity of spirit would help in healing our nation, but he's right, in that it doesn't sell papers.
- rospaya 4y ago
  > No. The author indicated that the exceptional (and it was, indeed, "exceptional") generosity and sense of Duty, exhibited by the townsfolk was ignored by the press. Man bites dog is news. Dog bites man isn't. Sorry to be cold and unaffectionate (I love the story though) but I believe it happens regulary. Big town, small town, there's good people everywhere.
  - toomuchtodo 4y ago
    Terrible people everywhere too. I like hearing about the good folks. It invigorates my soul. Hope is important!
  - phtrivier 4y ago
    I'm pretty sure there is a market for a social network that would tweak their algorithm to present positive content rather than the usual junk, though. It's not like FB or twitter doesn't have the resource and skill to A/B test that - but I'm pretty sure their biased by the 19th century tradition of "sex sells, and we only have one frontpage".
    - rospaya 4y ago
      Every time I saw a website present itself as "good news only" it was almost always religious in nature. Not sure if there's a market.
  - ShroudedNight 4y ago
    > Man bites dog is news. Dog bites man isn't. I become increasingly convinced that a significant part of our deficiency in reporting is that we've conflated "news" with "current affairs" long enough that we've forgotten that both are actually worthy of mental bandwidth.
- mcphage 4y ago
  > The author indicated that the exceptional (and it was, indeed, "exceptional") generosity and sense of Duty The author took pains to assert that it wasn't exceptional: >> And the most unusual thing about all this is: None of this is unusual >> believe me, they happen. Every day. Every hour. Ordinary Americans will astound you with their goodwill > was ignored by the press Well, they're right in that I didn't hear anything about this specific train derailment, but heart-warming human interest stories are a pretty regular staple of even the national press. > I do feel that publicizing examples of generosity of spirit would help in healing our nation I'm not so sure. Our nation isn't breaking apart because we can't pull together in a crisis, it's breaking apart because we can't stand together outside of a crisis. Americans want very different things, and pulling together in a crisis only helps when we're in crisis mode.
  - phtrivier 4y ago
    > Americans want very different things, and pulling together in a crisis only helps when we're in crisis mode The world _is_ in crisis mode. Unfortunately, some people have a vested interest in looking at the train crash, and not helping, and maybe even preventing people from helping. (I can't help but picture the "train-crash denier" next to the boy scout, explaning that the train did not crash, it's all a scam from you-know-who to restrict your liberties or serve the car industry, wake up sheeple, etc...)
  - kodah 4y ago
    I mean, this is a crisis. There's a constitutional crisis in terms of two extremely divergent views of how to understand the constitution that both carry significant trajectory changes and neither of which sound very helpful. There's a political crisis going on with neo-nazi influence in and around the Republican party that's not being dealt with at all. There's a digital war on-going that's been heating up for the past two-ish decades that promises to get worse. There's a literal housing crisis. There's more, but that's a short list I think most people can agree on.
    - mlyle 4y ago
      > ... extremely divergent views of how to understand the constitution... IMO, there's good in this situation, because inferring a nebulous right to privacy that didn't do very much was always a little questionable thing for the supreme court to do. It was a "good enough" measure that prevented us from doing any better. Yes, it's terrible that poor women in red states will have to pay the price. But ultimately, we're going to have to figure out how to define a right to privacy and make it into real law. And we can maybe fix other things, like security/privacy in our papers and effects and not rely upon 19th century judicial compromises on policing power and searches, too. > There's a political crisis going on with neo-nazi influence in and around the Republican party that's not being dealt with at all Honestly, the Republican party is <<slowly>> making itself less relevant. Which is kind of bad-- a relevant and not-crazy political opposition is a useful thing to a society.
xbar 4y ago
Is this a question you are asking in good faith, because I think it is clear that he is not making that claim?
- mcphage 4y ago
  > I think it is clear that he is not making that claim? This is the second last line of the piece, where the author explicitly makes that claim: >> Although we rarely hear about such acts of compassion and lovingkindness within our society, believe me, they happen. Every day. Every hour. Ordinary Americans will astound you with their goodwill. Sadly, ordinary American journalists aren’t interested in being astounded by such things. Maybe that's not what they're trying to get across—if not, I'd like to hear what you think it is—but I like how you jump to "acting in bad faith".
  - xbar 4y ago
    I think your question was rhetorical in casting journalism that focuses on American goodwill as "human interest" was designed to engender an angry response; that it was a trollish question where you already had an answer that was baiting; that you were not at all asking that question; that you were expressing an opinion. I think your responses affirm my read.
    - mcphage 4y ago
      > casting journalism that focuses on American goodwill as "human interest" was designed to engender an angry response Much like a passenger train barreling full speed into a dump truck, you made one severe mistake at the beginning and rode it head first into a spectacular disaster.
  - wmeredith 4y ago
    I'd actually argue that it's just not astounding, so it doesn't make headlines.
tptacek 4y ago
Yes. It's a bit of a thing with him.
- mcphage 4y ago
  Well then—I guess that's better than I was expecting, given how often "ordinary Americans" is a dogwhistle. I don't agree that journalism needs more feels good stories... but they could do worse.
  - tptacek 4y ago
    He writes very effectively in the voice of a 1980s regional newspaper columnist; you'd have gotten the same take on "if it bleeds it leads" news culture from one of them.

No. The author indicated that the exceptional (and it was, indeed, "exceptional") generosity and sense of Duty, exhibited by the townsfolk was ignored by the press. It was probably a bit "whiny," but it was not incorrect. I do feel that publicizing examples of generosity of spirit would help in healing our nation, but he's right, in that it doesn't sell papers.

rospaya 4y ago
> No. The author indicated that the exceptional (and it was, indeed, "exceptional") generosity and sense of Duty, exhibited by the townsfolk was ignored by the press. Man bites dog is news. Dog bites man isn't. Sorry to be cold and unaffectionate (I love the story though) but I believe it happens regulary. Big town, small town, there's good people everywhere.
- toomuchtodo 4y ago
  Terrible people everywhere too. I like hearing about the good folks. It invigorates my soul. Hope is important!
- phtrivier 4y ago
  I'm pretty sure there is a market for a social network that would tweak their algorithm to present positive content rather than the usual junk, though. It's not like FB or twitter doesn't have the resource and skill to A/B test that - but I'm pretty sure their biased by the 19th century tradition of "sex sells, and we only have one frontpage".
  - rospaya 4y ago
    Every time I saw a website present itself as "good news only" it was almost always religious in nature. Not sure if there's a market.
- ShroudedNight 4y ago
  > Man bites dog is news. Dog bites man isn't. I become increasingly convinced that a significant part of our deficiency in reporting is that we've conflated "news" with "current affairs" long enough that we've forgotten that both are actually worthy of mental bandwidth.
mcphage 4y ago
> The author indicated that the exceptional (and it was, indeed, "exceptional") generosity and sense of Duty The author took pains to assert that it wasn't exceptional: >> And the most unusual thing about all this is: None of this is unusual >> believe me, they happen. Every day. Every hour. Ordinary Americans will astound you with their goodwill > was ignored by the press Well, they're right in that I didn't hear anything about this specific train derailment, but heart-warming human interest stories are a pretty regular staple of even the national press. > I do feel that publicizing examples of generosity of spirit would help in healing our nation I'm not so sure. Our nation isn't breaking apart because we can't pull together in a crisis, it's breaking apart because we can't stand together outside of a crisis. Americans want very different things, and pulling together in a crisis only helps when we're in crisis mode.
- phtrivier 4y ago
  > Americans want very different things, and pulling together in a crisis only helps when we're in crisis mode The world _is_ in crisis mode. Unfortunately, some people have a vested interest in looking at the train crash, and not helping, and maybe even preventing people from helping. (I can't help but picture the "train-crash denier" next to the boy scout, explaning that the train did not crash, it's all a scam from you-know-who to restrict your liberties or serve the car industry, wake up sheeple, etc...)
- kodah 4y ago
  I mean, this is a crisis. There's a constitutional crisis in terms of two extremely divergent views of how to understand the constitution that both carry significant trajectory changes and neither of which sound very helpful. There's a political crisis going on with neo-nazi influence in and around the Republican party that's not being dealt with at all. There's a digital war on-going that's been heating up for the past two-ish decades that promises to get worse. There's a literal housing crisis. There's more, but that's a short list I think most people can agree on.
  - mlyle 4y ago
    > ... extremely divergent views of how to understand the constitution... IMO, there's good in this situation, because inferring a nebulous right to privacy that didn't do very much was always a little questionable thing for the supreme court to do. It was a "good enough" measure that prevented us from doing any better. Yes, it's terrible that poor women in red states will have to pay the price. But ultimately, we're going to have to figure out how to define a right to privacy and make it into real law. And we can maybe fix other things, like security/privacy in our papers and effects and not rely upon 19th century judicial compromises on policing power and searches, too. > There's a political crisis going on with neo-nazi influence in and around the Republican party that's not being dealt with at all Honestly, the Republican party is <<slowly>> making itself less relevant. Which is kind of bad-- a relevant and not-crazy political opposition is a useful thing to a society.

xbar 4y ago

Is this a question you are asking in good faith, because I think it is clear that he is not making that claim?

mcphage 4y ago
> I think it is clear that he is not making that claim? This is the second last line of the piece, where the author explicitly makes that claim: >> Although we rarely hear about such acts of compassion and lovingkindness within our society, believe me, they happen. Every day. Every hour. Ordinary Americans will astound you with their goodwill. Sadly, ordinary American journalists aren’t interested in being astounded by such things. Maybe that's not what they're trying to get across—if not, I'd like to hear what you think it is—but I like how you jump to "acting in bad faith".
- xbar 4y ago
  I think your question was rhetorical in casting journalism that focuses on American goodwill as "human interest" was designed to engender an angry response; that it was a trollish question where you already had an answer that was baiting; that you were not at all asking that question; that you were expressing an opinion. I think your responses affirm my read.
  - mcphage 4y ago
    > casting journalism that focuses on American goodwill as "human interest" was designed to engender an angry response Much like a passenger train barreling full speed into a dump truck, you made one severe mistake at the beginning and rode it head first into a spectacular disaster.
- wmeredith 4y ago
  I'd actually argue that it's just not astounding, so it doesn't make headlines.

tptacek 4y ago

Yes. It's a bit of a thing with him.

mcphage 4y ago
Well then—I guess that's better than I was expecting, given how often "ordinary Americans" is a dogwhistle. I don't agree that journalism needs more feels good stories... but they could do worse.
- tptacek 4y ago
  He writes very effectively in the voice of a 1980s regional newspaper columnist; you'd have gotten the same take on "if it bleeds it leads" news culture from one of them.