4 ms·

I think a much more parsimonious explanation is that news websites make money from their audience. It doesn't help to send your audience to other sources - you'

I think a much more parsimonious explanation is that news websites make money from their audience. It doesn't help to send your audience to other sources - you'll lose money. Your explanation doesn't really make a lot of sense. If some people just need things summarized for them by a journalist - those people could read the article. People who want to read the source themselves could follow the link. Linking to original sources from an article neatly solves the problems for both types of audience. Of course, it brings back the problem I mentioned first - that linking to original sources would be sending some portion of your audience and paycheck away. I also think your explanation would be likelier to ring true if your colleagues weren't tirelessly running down the reputation of your profession. My personal experience reading the news is not at all that journalists are usually trying to fairly or accurately summarize information - very much the contrary.

TheOtherHobbes 3y ago
I suspect the comment was trying to say that journalism is opinions about facts. And the facts are less important than the opinions. And this is fine. Good journalism is traditionally about holding power to account. Not seeing so much of that at the moment, except out in the mostly-unread fringes. As for SBF - someone else was downvoted for suggesting this is really about the parents. In my uninformed opinion, from the outside this looks like it may well about a very wealthy very narcissistic family which has persuaded itself it's above the law. SBF appears to have absolutely no concept of moral behaviour or legal consequences - remarkable in itself. But there are wider questions about how his parents may have contributed to his beliefs and actions. However this plays out legally, there's going to be a lot of interest in the psychology.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
camillomiller 3y ago
I unfortunately have to agree with your last paragraph. Plenty of my colleagues are absolutely doing an abysmal job, and many others follow a deeply self-righteous agenda. They are the vocal minority, and not the majority, and that’s really hard to bring across. My original annoyance with the tone of the comments I replied to is the deeply populistic undertone and the idea that a giant MainStreamMedia connection is trying to influence minds and steer public discourse. Could be that’s it also a personal trigger. I am NOT happy with where the journalistic profession is at right now, but I also don’t think we should just throw away the baby with the bathwater. When it comes to sources, I believe it’s just an editorial choice by the publishing companies that’s more of a custom coming from the days of paper journalism than anything else. Journalists on average have absolutely no control over the links they can put in a piece. So the issue was just addresses to the wrong people. The reason why that is, is that the OP clearly doesn’t know much of how the journalistic profession works from the inside as it is today. That was my claim. I am sick and tired of people that express their “here’s how you should do journalism” as if they had any idea how a newsroom actually works. They do not know the profession, they do not understand the complexities behind the publication of an article, and yet they feel that based on that “frontend” they should express their unifying theory of journalism.
- gloryjulio 3y ago
  Yes, providing sources should be part of the standard plain and simple. The complaints r 100% valid. Ifs the year 2023 and why can't we just have the source? It's not the readers'fault that they want them
mcpackieh 3y ago
> I think a much more parsimonious explanation is that news websites make money from their audience. It doesn't help to send your audience to other sources - you'll lose money. This cannot be the explanation, because journalists working for publicly funded organizations that don't get their money from eyeballs on ads suck at linking to their sources too. It's not a regrettable consequence of news industry business models, it's a culture problem in journalism.

TheOtherHobbes 3y ago

I suspect the comment was trying to say that journalism is opinions about facts. And the facts are less important than the opinions. And this is fine. Good journalism is traditionally about holding power to account. Not seeing so much of that at the moment, except out in the mostly-unread fringes. As for SBF - someone else was downvoted for suggesting this is really about the parents. In my uninformed opinion, from the outside this looks like it may well about a very wealthy very narcissistic family which has persuaded itself it's above the law. SBF appears to have absolutely no concept of moral behaviour or legal consequences - remarkable in itself. But there are wider questions about how his parents may have contributed to his beliefs and actions. However this plays out legally, there's going to be a lot of interest in the psychology.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

camillomiller 3y ago

I unfortunately have to agree with your last paragraph. Plenty of my colleagues are absolutely doing an abysmal job, and many others follow a deeply self-righteous agenda. They are the vocal minority, and not the majority, and that’s really hard to bring across. My original annoyance with the tone of the comments I replied to is the deeply populistic undertone and the idea that a giant MainStreamMedia connection is trying to influence minds and steer public discourse. Could be that’s it also a personal trigger. I am NOT happy with where the journalistic profession is at right now, but I also don’t think we should just throw away the baby with the bathwater. When it comes to sources, I believe it’s just an editorial choice by the publishing companies that’s more of a custom coming from the days of paper journalism than anything else. Journalists on average have absolutely no control over the links they can put in a piece. So the issue was just addresses to the wrong people. The reason why that is, is that the OP clearly doesn’t know much of how the journalistic profession works from the inside as it is today. That was my claim. I am sick and tired of people that express their “here’s how you should do journalism” as if they had any idea how a newsroom actually works. They do not know the profession, they do not understand the complexities behind the publication of an article, and yet they feel that based on that “frontend” they should express their unifying theory of journalism.

gloryjulio 3y ago
Yes, providing sources should be part of the standard plain and simple. The complaints r 100% valid. Ifs the year 2023 and why can't we just have the source? It's not the readers'fault that they want them

mcpackieh 3y ago

> I think a much more parsimonious explanation is that news websites make money from their audience. It doesn't help to send your audience to other sources - you'll lose money. This cannot be the explanation, because journalists working for publicly funded organizations that don't get their money from eyeballs on ads suck at linking to their sources too. It's not a regrettable consequence of news industry business models, it's a culture problem in journalism.