5 ms·

This is not remotely true. Modern media like Twitter and Reddit and HN and (dare I say) 4chan is where news breaks first. By the time I see it on the NYT Ive

This is not remotely true. Modern media like Twitter and Reddit and HN and (dare I say) 4chan is where news breaks first. By the time I see it on the NYT Ive already read about it on numerous other platforms and usually with better information because its written by people firsthand on the scene or people directly in the know. Information moves at lightspeed. Literally dont read the NYT or WaPo anymore. I like that they exist for the abstract idea that quality journalism exists but practically never use them. So yes Twitter is absolutely a competitor, due to its immediacy and its massive userbase.

notfromhere 3y ago
Social media personalities aren't replacements for actual journalism. Tons of Twittermill journalism just ends up being dead wrong, misinformed, or missing a ton of key context.
- vik0 3y ago
  >Tons of journalism just ends up being dead wrong, misinformed, or missing a ton of key context FIFY
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- netbioserror 3y ago
  You could say any of these things about the NYT with a much higher degree of confidence. On Twitter, people are probably lying to me. NYT hacks are definitely lying to me.
  - strangesmells06 3y ago
    It's not really lying. everyone views a subject differently. so in order to get closer to the actual truth what you want is a massive variety of perspectives and opinions so one can actually synthesize this to get closer to the truth or at least a well-educated perspective on the subject. which is what modern media gives to you. versus the old guard who present things in a very specific way.
- strangesmells06 3y ago
  journalism is information. whoever gets you that information faster wins even the old news outlets try to out-compete each other for speed to press. I personally think smart people are able to filter through a lot of information and synthesize the relevant. it's also arguable that you get closer to the truth with the diversity of opinions about a subject on modern media and once again this is better for smart people to make up thier minds about something.
  - crazygringo 3y ago
    > whoever gets you that information faster wins That's just not how it works. Most people are more interested in accuracy, context, analysis, and trustworthiness. Sure, papers very occasionally advertise that they were the first to break a story, but this is a minuscule proportion of everything they publish, and it's not the kind of thing that people switch subscriptions over. If you're a day trader of stocks then speed is king. But for nearly everyone else, it's not the main metric.
    - strangesmells06 3y ago
      > Most people are more interested in accuracy, context, analysis, and trustworthiness. Lol imagine thinking you get this from big monopoly news media almost all of which are owned by private equity media conglomerates. https://youtu.be/ksb3KD6DfSI?si=gc0FfF9WpdrKDmGW https://youtu.be/ksb3KD6DfSI?si=gc0FfF9WpdrKDmGW
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
crazygringo 3y ago
You're proving my point. NYT readers are interested in full articles and vetted analysis, not a bunch of scattered information from unknown sources, even if they're more immediate. All you're saying is you don't like NYT/WaPo because you don't read quality journalism. This is precisely my point. NYT competes with WaPo. Not with Twitter. If Twitter stopped existing, you still wouldn't go to the NYT. Because it's a totally different product category.
- strangesmells06 3y ago
  like the automobile was a different product category than the horse-drawn carriage?
  - crazygringo 3y ago
    No. Because if the automobile stopped existing, you'd go back to a horse and carriage. They did compete. If Twitter implodes, people go to Threads/Mastodon/etc. They don't go to the NYT.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - strangesmells06 3y ago
      You're saying if one car company fails people will use another car company instead of going back to the horse and carriage I'd agree with you on that
      - crazygringo 3y ago
        I know you're trying to imply that Twitter is more advanced than the NYT, but that's simply not true. They're different products for different audiences. Revenue at the NYT has grown between 8% and 16% yearly each year over the past 3 years. That's simply not what happens to a business that is in decline or being replaced. But go ahead, believe in your personal narrative all you want that somehow Twitter is replacing the NYT, despite all economic evidence and usage data to the contrary.

notfromhere 3y ago

Social media personalities aren't replacements for actual journalism. Tons of Twittermill journalism just ends up being dead wrong, misinformed, or missing a ton of key context.

vik0 3y ago
>Tons of journalism just ends up being dead wrong, misinformed, or missing a ton of key context FIFY
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
netbioserror 3y ago
You could say any of these things about the NYT with a much higher degree of confidence. On Twitter, people are probably lying to me. NYT hacks are definitely lying to me.
- strangesmells06 3y ago
  It's not really lying. everyone views a subject differently. so in order to get closer to the actual truth what you want is a massive variety of perspectives and opinions so one can actually synthesize this to get closer to the truth or at least a well-educated perspective on the subject. which is what modern media gives to you. versus the old guard who present things in a very specific way.
strangesmells06 3y ago
journalism is information. whoever gets you that information faster wins even the old news outlets try to out-compete each other for speed to press. I personally think smart people are able to filter through a lot of information and synthesize the relevant. it's also arguable that you get closer to the truth with the diversity of opinions about a subject on modern media and once again this is better for smart people to make up thier minds about something.
- crazygringo 3y ago
  > whoever gets you that information faster wins That's just not how it works. Most people are more interested in accuracy, context, analysis, and trustworthiness. Sure, papers very occasionally advertise that they were the first to break a story, but this is a minuscule proportion of everything they publish, and it's not the kind of thing that people switch subscriptions over. If you're a day trader of stocks then speed is king. But for nearly everyone else, it's not the main metric.
  - strangesmells06 3y ago
    > Most people are more interested in accuracy, context, analysis, and trustworthiness. Lol imagine thinking you get this from big monopoly news media almost all of which are owned by private equity media conglomerates. https://youtu.be/ksb3KD6DfSI?si=gc0FfF9WpdrKDmGW https://youtu.be/ksb3KD6DfSI?si=gc0FfF9WpdrKDmGW

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

crazygringo 3y ago

You're proving my point. NYT readers are interested in full articles and vetted analysis, not a bunch of scattered information from unknown sources, even if they're more immediate. All you're saying is you don't like NYT/WaPo because you don't read quality journalism. This is precisely my point. NYT competes with WaPo. Not with Twitter. If Twitter stopped existing, you still wouldn't go to the NYT. Because it's a totally different product category.

strangesmells06 3y ago
like the automobile was a different product category than the horse-drawn carriage?
- crazygringo 3y ago
  No. Because if the automobile stopped existing, you'd go back to a horse and carriage. They did compete. If Twitter implodes, people go to Threads/Mastodon/etc. They don't go to the NYT.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - strangesmells06 3y ago
    You're saying if one car company fails people will use another car company instead of going back to the horse and carriage I'd agree with you on that
    - crazygringo 3y ago
      I know you're trying to imply that Twitter is more advanced than the NYT, but that's simply not true. They're different products for different audiences. Revenue at the NYT has grown between 8% and 16% yearly each year over the past 3 years. That's simply not what happens to a business that is in decline or being replaced. But go ahead, believe in your personal narrative all you want that somehow Twitter is replacing the NYT, despite all economic evidence and usage data to the contrary.