4 ms·
Seems to have worked at making you angry. Well, triggering the embedded anger at the world anyway Sorry grubhub doesn’t deliver all the answers and you have t
by meinoeith 3y ago
Seems to have worked at making you angry.
Well, triggering the embedded anger at the world anyway
Sorry grubhub doesn’t deliver all the answers and you have to dig at the world yourself some
- brutusborn 3y agoNot angry, just frustrated at journalists who care more about stoking outrage than improving the world. Journalists are meant to do the digging for their readers. If they claim something in society isn't good, I don't think it's unreasonable that they should be expected to at least look into proposed solutions.
- marcus_holmes 3y agoJournalists need to get paid. Newspapers made a huge mistake back in '96 and went online for free. So now we're trained to think of news as free and ad-supported. But to be ad-supported they need clicks, and humans click more on things that make us angry/outraged/sad/etc. So journalists have to write articles that cause those emotions in order to get paid. It's all shit, but blaming the journos isn't the solution. If we want to get "real" journalism, we have to pay for it. We need to become the customer so the advertiser isn't and the journos can go back to being the watchdogs on democracy that we desperately need.
- brutusborn 3y agoI honestly think the causation is the reverse: people refuse to pay for low quality journalism because they can do a quick search on free sites and figure the story themselves. If journalists want to get paid, they need to produce something that people really value. It's not up to the consumer to pay for shitty news in the hope that their sacrifice improves it long term. Plenty of journalists are now self-publishing and getting subscription revenue because they produce content people want. This author choose to play the mainstream media game instead, and so they choose to produce click-bait. No one forced their hand. I don't think blaming Journalists is the solution: the solution is to support good journalists and push back against low quality click bait like this.
- marcus_holmes 3y agoThis is also true. Except that "figuring out the story for themselves" from primary sources is more challenging than the average reader is capable of ;) And yes, I believe the future will be self-publishing, but it's a hard road for journos compared to being paid to be in a newsroom. And yes, ultimately it's up to us as readers to resolve this, probably by paying for our news. The only problem with this solution is that people tend to pay for "news" that agrees with their opinions. There's an obvious financial incentive to pander to people's prejudices here.
- brutusborn 3y agoI think that problem exists for any solution. Whoever funds the media is going to prefer information that supports their beliefs, whether that is governments or citizens or advertisers. Citizen funded media results in the least centralization of power, so is better imo.
- marcus_holmes 3y agoTrue, much better than relying on billionaires to fund the news as a charity, as we do now :eyeroll:
- brutusborn 3y agoI wasn’t aware of this, I thought most of the funding was from government/corporations and ads? Which news orgs are charities?
- marcus_holmes 3y agoWashington Post is the obvious one - owned by Jeff Bezos and there are indications it changed its editorial stance to be more pro-billionaire since he took it over. It's not exactly charity if the owner uses it to influence government tax policy to your benefit ;)
- coconuthacker42 3y agoSeems like a critique of capitalism if you don't like journalists going the optimal way to get paid