3 ms·

As if Buzzfeed has today any label of quality... Well, ok, their Articles are quite good, they even got a Pulitzer IIRC. But overall, Buzzfeed is already a syno

As if Buzzfeed has today any label of quality... Well, ok, their Articles are quite good, they even got a Pulitzer IIRC. But overall, Buzzfeed is already a synonym for generic lifetime-wasting trash-content. I'd even say, an AI might actually improve the quality, bringing us a golden age of worthy trash. Because the dirty little secret at the end of all of this is: People like trash. Good Trash can be entertaining and supporting your procrastination. Sometimes it can even be informative, or at least giving you the impression.

marban 4y ago
Pulitzer => Buzzfeed News, not Buzzfeed.com
- PurpleRamen 4y ago
  Yes, I don't use either of them. But there is a link to news on Buzzfeed.com, so I assume there is a certain level of mix between the different contents for the readers?
  - cormacrelf 4y ago
    As far as you can see from the outside there is zero correlation in either internal direction/editorial control or readership
- chiefalchemist 4y ago
  Well... "National Enquirer Now Legit, According to Pulitzer Prize Board" https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/national-enquirer-now-legit-pulitzer-prize-board/story?id=9887329 https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/national-enquirer-now-l... "Shock! Horror! National Enquirer wins a Pulitzer. Not" https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/apr/13/shock-horror-national-enquirer-pulitzer https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/apr/13/shock-horror-n... Evidently, the Pulitzer has lost its way, much like the rest of Journalism.
  - rideontime 4y ago
    Your links don’t support your conclusion.
    - chiefalchemist 4y ago
      Support? The NE is a rag. A self-professed rag. But suddenly - cash under the table? - it's professional journalism? Lips stick on a pig...is still a pig. And you can sprinkle magic pixie dust on a turd and make it something else. If the likes of The NE can get a Pulitzer, then that prize has lost its meaning and significance. Let's not be so naive, please.
      - mattkrause 4y ago
        As your Guardian link says, the National Enquirer did not actually win a Pulitzer. If you think of the prize as being given for results rather than the process, it’s not that wild: they broke a major story that affected a presidential election. People occasionally find something valuable while digging through the trash, which seems like a pretty apt analogy. Likewise, the Nobel prize for grapheme was effectively for scribbling with a pencil on Scotch Tape and repeatedly pulling it apart. I used to do this in elementary school, but does it cheapen the Nobel Prize? I’d argue no, the prize is——-in part——-for realizing what you’ve got.
      - rideontime 4y ago
        Did you read the article you linked?
  - DoctorOW 4y ago
    After reading the entirety of those two articles, it seems the consensus is the story was good enough to prove it is possible for a well written story to come out of the National Enquirer, as evidenced by the fact that they did break a huge story. I'm aware that this evidence does not match what you feel about the National Enquirer but I disagree that not ignoring evidence to backup popular bias is a flaw in journalism as a field.

marban 4y ago

Pulitzer => Buzzfeed News, not Buzzfeed.com

PurpleRamen 4y ago
Yes, I don't use either of them. But there is a link to news on Buzzfeed.com, so I assume there is a certain level of mix between the different contents for the readers?
- cormacrelf 4y ago
  As far as you can see from the outside there is zero correlation in either internal direction/editorial control or readership
chiefalchemist 4y ago
Well... "National Enquirer Now Legit, According to Pulitzer Prize Board" https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/national-enquirer-now-legit-pulitzer-prize-board/story?id=9887329 https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/national-enquirer-now-l... "Shock! Horror! National Enquirer wins a Pulitzer. Not" https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/apr/13/shock-horror-national-enquirer-pulitzer https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/apr/13/shock-horror-n... Evidently, the Pulitzer has lost its way, much like the rest of Journalism.
- rideontime 4y ago
  Your links don’t support your conclusion.
  - chiefalchemist 4y ago
    Support? The NE is a rag. A self-professed rag. But suddenly - cash under the table? - it's professional journalism? Lips stick on a pig...is still a pig. And you can sprinkle magic pixie dust on a turd and make it something else. If the likes of The NE can get a Pulitzer, then that prize has lost its meaning and significance. Let's not be so naive, please.
    - mattkrause 4y ago
      As your Guardian link says, the National Enquirer did not actually win a Pulitzer. If you think of the prize as being given for results rather than the process, it’s not that wild: they broke a major story that affected a presidential election. People occasionally find something valuable while digging through the trash, which seems like a pretty apt analogy. Likewise, the Nobel prize for grapheme was effectively for scribbling with a pencil on Scotch Tape and repeatedly pulling it apart. I used to do this in elementary school, but does it cheapen the Nobel Prize? I’d argue no, the prize is——-in part——-for realizing what you’ve got.
    - rideontime 4y ago
      Did you read the article you linked?
- DoctorOW 4y ago
  After reading the entirety of those two articles, it seems the consensus is the story was good enough to prove it is possible for a well written story to come out of the National Enquirer, as evidenced by the fact that they did break a huge story. I'm aware that this evidence does not match what you feel about the National Enquirer but I disagree that not ignoring evidence to backup popular bias is a flaw in journalism as a field.