10 ms·

Definitely feels like there should be a "law of headlines" coined to effect of - something must always either be surging catastrophically or plummeting disatrou

Definitely feels like there should be a "law of headlines" coined to effect of - something must always either be surging catastrophically or plummeting disatrously.

glup 3y ago
And that’s an inclusive “or”, mind you-- I remember an Al-Jazeera news story that opened with the line “Some say the new measures go too far… but do the new measures go far enough?”
- bandrami 3y ago
  It's annoying because the "Critics charge X but supporters say Y" is an easy template for lazy journalism, and you invariably end up just re-typing the press releases of two competing advocacy organizations. If the Association of Umbrella Manufacturers says it's raining outside and the Organization of Sunscreen Bottlers says it's sunny, the reporter needs to open the window and look rather than just forwarding those statements; I can read them myself if I want to.
  - orwin 3y ago
    Exactly my grip with CNN and others news channel trying the 'middle ground' like BBC. I'd rather watch media with declared bias like Fox News than CNN/BBC where the bias is only visible in subject choices and editors/presentators are afraid to get wet. Upside : that's allow for a quick U-turn. By the way, I know an independent journalist: the version you get on TV is often the editor's cut. Sometimes journalists are only reporters, but more often than not there is censorship (or self-censorship for non independent journalists) in the editor's room. That's why report from the same journalist can be used by 'liberal news' and ' conservative news' (not idea if that happens in the US, but in my country it does.) Honestly, you'll be better served with local newspapers. Or independent local news.
eastbound 3y ago
The law of headlines should also mention that they mention events in the future: “Today, we expect the president to meet with xyz and announce what they will do with abc”, building up the thrill, rather than reporting when it’s done and the announcement is made. Journalists talking about the future. That’s not journalism.
- eyelidlessness 3y ago
  Yes, it is. Being aware of how the immediate future is shaped by already made decisions helps to inform people who wouldn’t otherwise know what’s pending. The contrary journalistic standard would be, well, the first chapter of Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.
  - eastbound 3y ago
    No. It’s a journalism of building up expectations and hyping up the dopamine, ie it’s barely marketing. Journalism is about reporting information. Information about future events is not information.
    - lazyasciiart 3y ago
      Of course it is. I would be furious if my local news stopped informing me that the highway will be closed for maintenance on Saturday, elections are being held on Tuesday, public schools have the day off on Thursday and the local university will be playing a championship game on Sunday.
      - detaro 3y ago
        These are all not examples of what the original comment complains about.
        wholinator2 3y ago
        So then to me it looks like it isn't about reporting the future, but speculating about it.
hsbauauvhabzb 3y ago
Australian media uses the word horror in almost every tragedy story. Sometimes I feel like they need thesaurus’s explained to them.
- lazyasciiart 3y ago
  thesaurus's what?
lynx23 3y ago
The truth is, journalism has cratered. However, most are not ready to accept the truth, since they still believe the media are an essential part of democracy.
- carlmr 3y ago
  Good news reporting is an essential part of democracy. We don't have it anymore. Nobody wants to pay for it. We'll see how it goes.
  - lynx23 3y ago
    Lamenting the unwillingness to pay for trash is a hopeless cause. The cat bites its own tale. Most news outlets I know have deteriorated so much in quality that I would never even think about paying for any of that propaganda. Give me a good, balanced, non-pliticized and honest news site, and I might consider supporting them.
    - saintkaye 3y ago
      You don’t actually want that or you’d be paying for it already. The problem is that most news doesn’t affect you and the majority that does only affects you in that it excites, scares or entertains you. It wasn’t that news got bad or people got more evil, it’s that the value of information cratered and now it’s not even expensive enough to come with editors.
      - robertlagrant 3y ago
        > You don’t actually want that or you’d be paying for it already Which one are you talking about?
      - account42 3y ago
        > The problem is that most news doesn’t affect you. There is plenty of news that affect me, it just happens to (mostly) not be covered in the news. And when it is it is often propaganda rather than even remotely unbiased reporting.
blowski 3y ago
Or plateauing unsustainably.
subarctic 3y ago
Or plateauing disappointingly?
Denvercoder9 3y ago
Isn't that just an intrinsic property of the news? If things are unchanging, there's nothing new, so it's almost by definition not news.
- joshspankit 3y ago
  It’s an intrinsic part of ad-supported news (which seems to be all we have right now). When news was just news there were “slow news days” where there was either no reporting or “fluff”.

Definitely feels like there should be a "law of headlines" coined to effect of - something must always either be surging catastrophically or plummeting disatrously.

glup 3y ago

And that’s an inclusive “or”, mind you-- I remember an Al-Jazeera news story that opened with the line “Some say the new measures go too far… but do the new measures go far enough?”

bandrami 3y ago
It's annoying because the "Critics charge X but supporters say Y" is an easy template for lazy journalism, and you invariably end up just re-typing the press releases of two competing advocacy organizations. If the Association of Umbrella Manufacturers says it's raining outside and the Organization of Sunscreen Bottlers says it's sunny, the reporter needs to open the window and look rather than just forwarding those statements; I can read them myself if I want to.
- orwin 3y ago
  Exactly my grip with CNN and others news channel trying the 'middle ground' like BBC. I'd rather watch media with declared bias like Fox News than CNN/BBC where the bias is only visible in subject choices and editors/presentators are afraid to get wet. Upside : that's allow for a quick U-turn. By the way, I know an independent journalist: the version you get on TV is often the editor's cut. Sometimes journalists are only reporters, but more often than not there is censorship (or self-censorship for non independent journalists) in the editor's room. That's why report from the same journalist can be used by 'liberal news' and ' conservative news' (not idea if that happens in the US, but in my country it does.) Honestly, you'll be better served with local newspapers. Or independent local news.

eastbound 3y ago

The law of headlines should also mention that they mention events in the future: “Today, we expect the president to meet with xyz and announce what they will do with abc”, building up the thrill, rather than reporting when it’s done and the announcement is made. Journalists talking about the future. That’s not journalism.

eyelidlessness 3y ago
Yes, it is. Being aware of how the immediate future is shaped by already made decisions helps to inform people who wouldn’t otherwise know what’s pending. The contrary journalistic standard would be, well, the first chapter of Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.
- eastbound 3y ago
  No. It’s a journalism of building up expectations and hyping up the dopamine, ie it’s barely marketing. Journalism is about reporting information. Information about future events is not information.
  - lazyasciiart 3y ago
    Of course it is. I would be furious if my local news stopped informing me that the highway will be closed for maintenance on Saturday, elections are being held on Tuesday, public schools have the day off on Thursday and the local university will be playing a championship game on Sunday.
    - detaro 3y ago
      These are all not examples of what the original comment complains about.
      - wholinator2 3y ago
        So then to me it looks like it isn't about reporting the future, but speculating about it.

hsbauauvhabzb 3y ago

Australian media uses the word horror in almost every tragedy story. Sometimes I feel like they need thesaurus’s explained to them.

lazyasciiart 3y ago
thesaurus's what?

lynx23 3y ago

The truth is, journalism has cratered. However, most are not ready to accept the truth, since they still believe the media are an essential part of democracy.

carlmr 3y ago
Good news reporting is an essential part of democracy. We don't have it anymore. Nobody wants to pay for it. We'll see how it goes.
- lynx23 3y ago
  Lamenting the unwillingness to pay for trash is a hopeless cause. The cat bites its own tale. Most news outlets I know have deteriorated so much in quality that I would never even think about paying for any of that propaganda. Give me a good, balanced, non-pliticized and honest news site, and I might consider supporting them.
  - saintkaye 3y ago
    You don’t actually want that or you’d be paying for it already. The problem is that most news doesn’t affect you and the majority that does only affects you in that it excites, scares or entertains you. It wasn’t that news got bad or people got more evil, it’s that the value of information cratered and now it’s not even expensive enough to come with editors.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      > You don’t actually want that or you’d be paying for it already Which one are you talking about?
    - account42 3y ago
      > The problem is that most news doesn’t affect you. There is plenty of news that affect me, it just happens to (mostly) not be covered in the news. And when it is it is often propaganda rather than even remotely unbiased reporting.

blowski 3y ago

Or plateauing unsustainably.

subarctic 3y ago

Or plateauing disappointingly?

Denvercoder9 3y ago

Isn't that just an intrinsic property of the news? If things are unchanging, there's nothing new, so it's almost by definition not news.

joshspankit 3y ago
It’s an intrinsic part of ad-supported news (which seems to be all we have right now). When news was just news there were “slow news days” where there was either no reporting or “fluff”.