3 ms·

> I cannot stress enough how clear the structural trends are, and how fundamentally they will change journalism from serving the broad public to serving, basica

> I cannot stress enough how clear the structural trends are, and how fundamentally they will change journalism from serving the broad public to serving, basically, people like me who are affluent, highly educated, privileged, and middle-aged or older. Is this a parody? I thought it was serious until here.

AndrewKemendo 3y ago
It seems like often times articles of this type are the exegesis of an idealism that has been dashed
gnicholas 3y ago
I also found this sentence to be oddly self-aggrandizing. He has determined that only cultured elites like himself are interested in knowing what's going on in the world, apparently. Even if all only people who are affluent, highly educated, privileged (aren't all affluent people privileged?), and middle-aged or older read the news, that's still way more people than care about art. Plenty of people I know who fit these criteria don't care at all about art, but definitely read the news.
- amadeuspagel 3y ago
  For a certain idea of what's going on in the world –– the author mentions horserace coverage, “behind the scenes” features, and punditry –– that's true.
KaiserPro 3y ago
Kinda serious, but self centred. TLDR journalism is expensive. Accurate journalism even more so, investigative 10 x that. if its only for rich people, then only rich people problems will get exposed. Longer: As you know journalism costs, "journalism" is cheaper, and often more popular. What do I mean? Big paid for news systems have the budget to let people investigate stuff, peer in, check sources and generally have specialists in different areas (transport, health, science, trade, business, environment, law , etc). This means that its harder to sneak bullshit past them, and use that platform as a free advertiser. What does this mean in practice? Well, lets look at tech coverage. the free sites are basically a thin veneer over tech company's PR. Certain sites will be given exclusive access if they are nice and well behaved. Tech companies are almost never tackled on their bullshit. Thats down to financial news sites or the like. Theranos was obviously pulling some bullshit, but it wasn't until the WSJ put some effort in before consequences actually happened. but how could that be? because up until the finance news papers got involved, Theranos was operating in a pull model, sending invites to tech journalists who know that if they say bad things, they won't be called back. Apple and Tesla do this as well, along with others. This means that if you want eyeballs, you need to be nice to the tech companies and print bullshit. So what does that mean? It means that rich people's news sources are doing the majority of investigative journalism, which means there are scandals that affect the average person, going unpunished. For the UK that means things like the collapse of the NHS, Adult and social care, the halfing of all local council budgets, along with education for kids with any kind of extra need. Most of that is known, but its never a front of centre by the news sources. Which means the government can ignore it. (see the post office scandal, it was known about, but never front page. it took a fucking drama to shame the state into action.)
- cratermoon 3y ago
  There was a time when the news arm of networks and local TV was a loss center, and supported by revenue generated from other content, like prime time TV. At some point the businesses decided that news should turn a profit, and that was the beginning of the end. Even for newspapers, the majority of the profitable sections were sports and leisure, the hard news section was never expected to run in the green. Combined with Facebook and Google eating all the ad dollars, networks and news outlets couldn't sustain a news organization by any means.

AndrewKemendo 3y ago

It seems like often times articles of this type are the exegesis of an idealism that has been dashed

gnicholas 3y ago

I also found this sentence to be oddly self-aggrandizing. He has determined that only cultured elites like himself are interested in knowing what's going on in the world, apparently. Even if all only people who are affluent, highly educated, privileged (aren't all affluent people privileged?), and middle-aged or older read the news, that's still way more people than care about art. Plenty of people I know who fit these criteria don't care at all about art, but definitely read the news.

amadeuspagel 3y ago
For a certain idea of what's going on in the world –– the author mentions horserace coverage, “behind the scenes” features, and punditry –– that's true.

KaiserPro 3y ago

Kinda serious, but self centred. TLDR journalism is expensive. Accurate journalism even more so, investigative 10 x that. if its only for rich people, then only rich people problems will get exposed. Longer: As you know journalism costs, "journalism" is cheaper, and often more popular. What do I mean? Big paid for news systems have the budget to let people investigate stuff, peer in, check sources and generally have specialists in different areas (transport, health, science, trade, business, environment, law , etc). This means that its harder to sneak bullshit past them, and use that platform as a free advertiser. What does this mean in practice? Well, lets look at tech coverage. the free sites are basically a thin veneer over tech company's PR. Certain sites will be given exclusive access if they are nice and well behaved. Tech companies are almost never tackled on their bullshit. Thats down to financial news sites or the like. Theranos was obviously pulling some bullshit, but it wasn't until the WSJ put some effort in before consequences actually happened. but how could that be? because up until the finance news papers got involved, Theranos was operating in a pull model, sending invites to tech journalists who know that if they say bad things, they won't be called back. Apple and Tesla do this as well, along with others. This means that if you want eyeballs, you need to be nice to the tech companies and print bullshit. So what does that mean? It means that rich people's news sources are doing the majority of investigative journalism, which means there are scandals that affect the average person, going unpunished. For the UK that means things like the collapse of the NHS, Adult and social care, the halfing of all local council budgets, along with education for kids with any kind of extra need. Most of that is known, but its never a front of centre by the news sources. Which means the government can ignore it. (see the post office scandal, it was known about, but never front page. it took a fucking drama to shame the state into action.)

cratermoon 3y ago
There was a time when the news arm of networks and local TV was a loss center, and supported by revenue generated from other content, like prime time TV. At some point the businesses decided that news should turn a profit, and that was the beginning of the end. Even for newspapers, the majority of the profitable sections were sports and leisure, the hard news section was never expected to run in the green. Combined with Facebook and Google eating all the ad dollars, networks and news outlets couldn't sustain a news organization by any means.