5 ms·
> It doesn't matter when you're reporting on celebrity gossip Umm, personally I find that fairly distasteful too. "Paparazzi pictures of Jack Nicholson, Gene
by logifail 4y ago
> It doesn't matter when you're reporting on celebrity gossip
Umm, personally I find that fairly distasteful too.
"Paparazzi pictures of Jack Nicholson, Gene Hackman and Bridget Fonda have circulated online, feeding into an odd desire to force reclusive actors back into the spotlight"[0]
Now everything is done in service of ever more clicks and hence ads, I find myself less and willing to consume traditional journalism. At all.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/apr/21/hollywood-actors-privacy-paparazzi-trend https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/apr/21/hollywood-actor...
- whimsicalism 4y agoJournalism has always been about ads, they just used to be bad at it.
- cratermoon 4y agoIt's more correct to say they could still be profitable while being bad at it. In the last 10 or so years, journalism has been captured by the dynamics of online advertising while the outlets themselves have become increasingly consolidated under profit-driven corporate masters. For a long time the newsroom, especially of TV and radio networks, was considered a cost center, but that was OK because the entertainment departments brought in the money. Now news organizations themselves are supposed to be profitable, which leads to incentives being skewed towards views and ad revenue.
- logifail 4y ago> Journalism has always been about ads, they just used to be bad at it I'm not sure what definition of "bad" we'd need to use (and btw, "bad" for whom?) for that claim to be true.