4 ms·

The real problem is presuming the profit model for news is a good idea. It's going to always tend towards quick-turn around, low-effort sensationalism because

The real problem is presuming the profit model for news is a good idea. It's going to always tend towards quick-turn around, low-effort sensationalism because that's the most profitable configuration. Speculation, accusation, defamation, and conspiracies will always get more eyeballs then careful balanced well researched reporting. Lying about something now is cheaper and more profitable than sending a reporter out and getting the facts tomorrow. Especially after the rise of the modern citizen journalist where the costs of video hardware, production, and distribution are near zero. Naturally people doing near zero-cost content production quickly flooded the market and Bullshit will always be the cheapest content to produce. There has to be a model where such manipulative lying doesn't pay off. We have to somehow separate how we've structured news from how we've structured entertainment.

morkalork 3y ago
It takes time and resources, which cost money. Ads can't pay for it well enough. The article rightly points out that subscriptions cost way too much relative to the number of sources people consume. Everyone left and right screeches about government influence if taxes are used to pay for it. What's left, wealthy patronage paying for it? People working for free (e.g. OSINT twitter)?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
silvestrov 3y ago
I think that in the old days people read newspapers and magazines because there was no other way to spend time in a bus/subway/train/waiting_room without engaging with other people. So newspapers were entertainment (and status signals) to a much higher degree than journalists wants to admit. Being informed was only a small part of the job that reading a newspaper did. This is why Facebook could take over such a large amount of ad spending while it is still correct that only a very small part of time on Facebook is reading "real news". https://cdn.baekdal.com/_img/2017/spotify4.png https://cdn.baekdal.com/_img/2017/spotify4.png
- morkalork 3y ago
  I don't remember news papers being a status symbol exactly, what I remember is that it was rare for a household to have more than one subscription. Multiple magazines, sure, but not newspapers. I remember categorizing my friend's parents by their choices. "This is a National Post household" or Toronto Star, The Globe and Mail.
  - 2big2fail_47 3y ago
    the categorizing shows how different newspaper signal a certain world view. They can also signal wealth, class and a political view. so i think they are very much status symbols
  - prepend 3y ago
    > I don't remember news papers being a status symbol exactly How many people have told you they subscribe to the NYTimes? Even now, it comes up quite a bit. But in the olden days of people reading the paper on the train, it was a topic of conversation much more. How many papers one subscribed to, which one, etc etc.
- tomjen3 3y ago
  Books have been available for a long time and they also have quite a high status - so unless there was something else to it, why wouldn't most people be reading books?
damnesian 3y ago
>It's going to always tend to quick-turn around, low-effort sensationalism because that's the most profitable configuration. Exactly so. Just thinking about to the last time I consciously perceived my media offerings were being tailored based on my previous behavior, I found the choices abysmal. The algorithm is all; but the algorithm sucks. That makes it wholly unsuitable for digestion as news.
osigurdson 3y ago
What other model do you propose? Government funded news? No news at all? Volunteer news?
- kristopolous 3y ago
  Think about how higher education and journals work... There's lots of criticism of them but if you get, say, a masters in chemistry from let's say Columbia, you aren't going to be learning about alchemy and orgones. We seem to be able to reasonably pull that off as a society. So I guess look at systems with relatively low bullshit information density and try to follow their lead somehow. We might have to admit that decently produced news is hard, time-consuming, and kind of expensive. As for "who's going to pay for it", I reject the premise. Society figures out how to pay for things they value. The first step is to create the things of value and get general society to respond in kind. The first part is mostly done. The second part needs the work. Most people probably don't know about things like say, quanta magazine or whether it's any good or not.
  - osigurdson 3y ago
    Isn't "getting general society to responding in kind" essentially figuring out "who's going to pay for it"?
    - kristopolous 3y ago
      Indirectly! Yes. That's the point. We don't ask about who will pay for the new police helicopter or military jet or who will pay for a bank bailout or corporate subsidy. But if it's in the public interest everyone puts on their reading glasses and pulls out their calculator and red pens. This is a function of priorities and we need to make sure they're being intentionally set and then the money will flow accordingly. This should be in the same priority class as food inspection, water sanitation and road repair. That's how important honest well funded news is to a functional democracy. We don't say, complain that the city fixing potholes interferes with the market of private road repair companies.
idopmstuff 3y ago
> There has to be a model where such manipulative lying doesn't pay off. The more I think about this problem, the less I feel like there's a solution. Ultimately, any news outlet is going to be responsible for whoever is funding it. You can get the Bezos/Soon-Shiong/etc. model, in which the newspaper is treated as a billionaire's philanthropic project, which is problematic in that you've got one person responsible, and if he's not happy he can stop funding it. You can do a broader, crowdsourced/fundraised philanthropy model, but if the newspaper doesn't make content that people like, they're not going to donate. You're almost certainly going to end up with a partisan paper, because you either need donors from the left or donors from the right. You can do the government-funded model, but of course everyone ought to be wary of the government controlling the funding of the news. So... what does that leave? I don't ask that rhetorically - it's something that I've thought a lot about and failed to come to any kind of a useful answer on. The best thing I can come up with is a billionaire (or group of them) endowing a newspaper with a trust that they can't take back and which doesn't allow them to exert control. But then you've still gotta have someone hiring the staff and running the place - who picks those people? I really don't know - it feels like a truly intractable problem. I'm honestly glad for the rise of the Substack/newsletter model - at least there, I know exactly who's responsible for the content and what their biases are. Unfortunately, that's better for political commentary and the like - it's just not a feasible model for breaking actual news.

morkalork 3y ago

It takes time and resources, which cost money. Ads can't pay for it well enough. The article rightly points out that subscriptions cost way too much relative to the number of sources people consume. Everyone left and right screeches about government influence if taxes are used to pay for it. What's left, wealthy patronage paying for it? People working for free (e.g. OSINT twitter)?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

silvestrov 3y ago

I think that in the old days people read newspapers and magazines because there was no other way to spend time in a bus/subway/train/waiting_room without engaging with other people. So newspapers were entertainment (and status signals) to a much higher degree than journalists wants to admit. Being informed was only a small part of the job that reading a newspaper did. This is why Facebook could take over such a large amount of ad spending while it is still correct that only a very small part of time on Facebook is reading "real news". https://cdn.baekdal.com/_img/2017/spotify4.png https://cdn.baekdal.com/_img/2017/spotify4.png

morkalork 3y ago
I don't remember news papers being a status symbol exactly, what I remember is that it was rare for a household to have more than one subscription. Multiple magazines, sure, but not newspapers. I remember categorizing my friend's parents by their choices. "This is a National Post household" or Toronto Star, The Globe and Mail.
- 2big2fail_47 3y ago
  the categorizing shows how different newspaper signal a certain world view. They can also signal wealth, class and a political view. so i think they are very much status symbols
- prepend 3y ago
  > I don't remember news papers being a status symbol exactly How many people have told you they subscribe to the NYTimes? Even now, it comes up quite a bit. But in the olden days of people reading the paper on the train, it was a topic of conversation much more. How many papers one subscribed to, which one, etc etc.
tomjen3 3y ago
Books have been available for a long time and they also have quite a high status - so unless there was something else to it, why wouldn't most people be reading books?

damnesian 3y ago

>It's going to always tend to quick-turn around, low-effort sensationalism because that's the most profitable configuration. Exactly so. Just thinking about to the last time I consciously perceived my media offerings were being tailored based on my previous behavior, I found the choices abysmal. The algorithm is all; but the algorithm sucks. That makes it wholly unsuitable for digestion as news.

osigurdson 3y ago

What other model do you propose? Government funded news? No news at all? Volunteer news?

kristopolous 3y ago
Think about how higher education and journals work... There's lots of criticism of them but if you get, say, a masters in chemistry from let's say Columbia, you aren't going to be learning about alchemy and orgones. We seem to be able to reasonably pull that off as a society. So I guess look at systems with relatively low bullshit information density and try to follow their lead somehow. We might have to admit that decently produced news is hard, time-consuming, and kind of expensive. As for "who's going to pay for it", I reject the premise. Society figures out how to pay for things they value. The first step is to create the things of value and get general society to respond in kind. The first part is mostly done. The second part needs the work. Most people probably don't know about things like say, quanta magazine or whether it's any good or not.
- osigurdson 3y ago
  Isn't "getting general society to responding in kind" essentially figuring out "who's going to pay for it"?
  - kristopolous 3y ago
    Indirectly! Yes. That's the point. We don't ask about who will pay for the new police helicopter or military jet or who will pay for a bank bailout or corporate subsidy. But if it's in the public interest everyone puts on their reading glasses and pulls out their calculator and red pens. This is a function of priorities and we need to make sure they're being intentionally set and then the money will flow accordingly. This should be in the same priority class as food inspection, water sanitation and road repair. That's how important honest well funded news is to a functional democracy. We don't say, complain that the city fixing potholes interferes with the market of private road repair companies.

idopmstuff 3y ago

> There has to be a model where such manipulative lying doesn't pay off. The more I think about this problem, the less I feel like there's a solution. Ultimately, any news outlet is going to be responsible for whoever is funding it. You can get the Bezos/Soon-Shiong/etc. model, in which the newspaper is treated as a billionaire's philanthropic project, which is problematic in that you've got one person responsible, and if he's not happy he can stop funding it. You can do a broader, crowdsourced/fundraised philanthropy model, but if the newspaper doesn't make content that people like, they're not going to donate. You're almost certainly going to end up with a partisan paper, because you either need donors from the left or donors from the right. You can do the government-funded model, but of course everyone ought to be wary of the government controlling the funding of the news. So... what does that leave? I don't ask that rhetorically - it's something that I've thought a lot about and failed to come to any kind of a useful answer on. The best thing I can come up with is a billionaire (or group of them) endowing a newspaper with a trust that they can't take back and which doesn't allow them to exert control. But then you've still gotta have someone hiring the staff and running the place - who picks those people? I really don't know - it feels like a truly intractable problem. I'm honestly glad for the rise of the Substack/newsletter model - at least there, I know exactly who's responsible for the content and what their biases are. Unfortunately, that's better for political commentary and the like - it's just not a feasible model for breaking actual news.