3 ms·

> I'd argue high quality journalistic work is supremely valuable but it needs to be targeted Ok, sure, I can agree so far. > and lots of legacy news propertie

> I'd argue high quality journalistic work is supremely valuable but it needs to be targeted Ok, sure, I can agree so far. > and lots of legacy news properties (NYT, The Guardian, etc) have been doing that And you've lost me. the high-status outlets that survived the online transition are doing "rushed college essay"-tier work at best. Where's the "high quality journalistic work"? I recently realized I should compare the news to the non-fiction I'm reading all the time. It's not THE NEWS but whats the real difference between one 500-to-5000 word explainer for newbs and another? One is the news because it's supposed to be important. Otherwise it'd be an obscure subject matter explainer like the other shit I'm reading. And god damn is the news embarrassing themselves.

SpicyLemonZest 3y ago
The difference is that the news, because it's attempting to explain things that are happening now, doesn't have the luxuries of time or hindsight that contribute to the quality of other nonfiction. Campaign coverage is probably the best example of this: any good nonfiction author will recognize that there's no way to write a book about it until it's done, but journalists kinda fundamentally have to offer play-by-play commentary.
eitally 3y ago
The majority of what the rags do is not high quality, but a fraction of where they spend their time is. I'd put basically all of the NYTimes' Interactive work in that category -- here's an example I was just reading yesterday: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/08/28/climate/groundwater-drying-climate-change.html?action=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/08/28/climate/groun... And here's a WaPo example: https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/interactive/2023/takeaways-smithsonian-human-brains-remains-collection/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/interactive/2023/take... Similarly, The Guardian on the Panama Papers: https://www.theguardian.com/news/series/panama-papers https://www.theguardian.com/news/series/panama-papers ---- Somebody has the report "the news" and that's both untrustworthy and commoditized at this point, but it's not like traditional newspapers aren't also doing any investigative journalism, or intentionally not adopting multimedia methods of presentation.

SpicyLemonZest 3y ago

The difference is that the news, because it's attempting to explain things that are happening now, doesn't have the luxuries of time or hindsight that contribute to the quality of other nonfiction. Campaign coverage is probably the best example of this: any good nonfiction author will recognize that there's no way to write a book about it until it's done, but journalists kinda fundamentally have to offer play-by-play commentary.

eitally 3y ago

The majority of what the rags do is not high quality, but a fraction of where they spend their time is. I'd put basically all of the NYTimes' Interactive work in that category -- here's an example I was just reading yesterday: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/08/28/climate/groundwater-drying-climate-change.html?action=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/08/28/climate/groun... And here's a WaPo example: https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/interactive/2023/takeaways-smithsonian-human-brains-remains-collection/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/interactive/2023/take... Similarly, The Guardian on the Panama Papers: https://www.theguardian.com/news/series/panama-papers https://www.theguardian.com/news/series/panama-papers ---- Somebody has the report "the news" and that's both untrustworthy and commoditized at this point, but it's not like traditional newspapers aren't also doing any investigative journalism, or intentionally not adopting multimedia methods of presentation.