5 ms·
> It's hard to tell if the media has gotten worse at their jobs It's not that "the media" has gotten worse at their jobs. Rather, there simply a lot less fundi
by boplicity 4y ago
> It's hard to tell if the media has gotten worse at their jobs
It's not that "the media" has gotten worse at their jobs. Rather, there simply a lot less funding for reporters. The hit in funding has become much worse in local reporting -- especially local newspapers. However, if this is viewed as a training ground for the few large national/international news organizations, it's easy to see how this has a profound impact for even the large and well funded publications.
There's simply much less reporting happening than their used to be, and it's a real problem.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/07/13/u-s-newsroom-employment-has-fallen-26-since-2008/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/07/13/u-s-newsroo...
https://www.statista.com/statistics/626459/number-employees-newspaper-industry/#:~:text=In%202021%2C%20just%20104%2C290%20people%20were%20employed%20in,from%2075%20thousand%20to%20less%20than%2030%20thousand https://www.statista.com/statistics/626459/number-employees-....
- mccorrinall 4y agoThe first statistic you link is a newsroom statistic. This cut makes sense, because newspaper now get their news from big agencies. Newsrooms are completely different from investigative digging into stuff.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- pasc1878 4y agoBut who collects the stories for the agencies - it used to be the local reporters who are the ones gone. This is the point of the statistic I am in UK and look at my local papers - the number of stories is massively down and the report numbers are much smaller. One reporter now for several London boroughs when there used to be several for one. Who is looking at local government now?
- cguess 4y agoNo one, and (though I'm not sure this is true in the UK as well, though I imagine it is) it's pretty much 100% private equity's fault. They bought up every local paper they could, saddled them with the debt (how that's a thing that's allowed in accounting I will never understand), and then claimed the Internet killed them. Yes, news orgs could have adapted faster, but most privately held papers were in the black. Only when the debts and insane growth expectations were added were they dying. Private equity is ruining modern democratic institutions.
- pasc1878 4y agoAgreed about privat equity in general but the UK papers are all owned by media groups I think so no PEs fault here. The issue is lack of advertising revenue. No local classified adds or local firms. All gone to Facebook.
- commandlinefan 4y ago> a lot less funding for reporters There's plenty of funding for and to reporters who aren't trying to discover the truth but instead manufacture it.
- in_cahoots 4y agoApparently SBF had ‘donated’ millions to ProPublica to cover effective altruism. These institutions are so desperate for funding that they’re having to get creative just to survive. I’m not sure what’s worse, no media or one that pretends to be neutral but is actually in the pockets of private donors.
- bmelton 4y agoI don't know if this is right or wrong, but if I were running a news agency, I would think that glowing puff pieces would be one of the first things I'd eliminate in the event of a financial crunch. Is there a reason we think they persist?
- mrguyorama 4y agoWhy? Glowing puff pieces are a reliable, dirt cheap source of revenue
- opportune 4y agoPuff pieces are part of the PR machine. From what little I know of it, they’re basically ghostwritten by PR agencies so they cost almost nothing in the way of journalists to produce. Also, there is the quid pro quo aspect where puff pieces are (presumably) traded for things like access and other newsworthy information