4 ms·
News become part of history but I don't think history is the integral of old news. To think about things maybe dear to us, the history of Apple, Steve Jobs, Am
by YZF 3y ago
News become part of history but I don't think history is the integral of old news.
To think about things maybe dear to us, the history of Apple, Steve Jobs, Amiga, Atari, is very different than the integral of news about those. It is more influenced by people's stories that were never "news". I'm not sure any news about these really constitute a major part of what we'd call the history there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History says "inquiry; knowledge acquired by investigation" ... most of what we call news doesn't really involve much in the way of inquiry or investigation. A lot of news is just PR. E.g. the crime reporter in the news knows some guys in the police and they give him some story and he prints it. That's news. Often the history of significant events is discovered over much longer time frames through more serious investigation and research. The events that aren't significant sort of fade away into nothingness.
Good journalism, investigative reporting, that provides some insight, seems incredibly rare in any domain.
When news stories come out about some technical discovery or science, and you're familiar with the domain, they very rarely are accurate. Like those "cancer is finally cured" stories that pop up every now and then as "news".
I guess it's like "reality" shows?
- singlepaynews 3y ago> A lot of news is just PR. It seems like the distinction between PR and news as content is clear though, and their conflation is from being published together > News become part of history but I don't think history is the integral of old news. Certainly not; so my mental model can be amended: History ~= integration(old news + X)dt And my question then is what to use as X?
- YZF 3y agoMy point was that what you think is news, is actually PR. You might have the image of journalists hard at work in the field gathering news, but most the news you get is actually not that, it's straight out PR. It is not someone observing something, it is some official body sending out PR to journalists. That can be the police, it can be a government, it can be companies, etc. It is published as "news" but is not what you think it is. I think your point is that some PR is officially PR but that's not what I'm talking about.