6 ms·
"we make something worth buying." That is interesting. The "buying" ostensibly refers to journalism, which is where IMO the media has failed terribly in the pas
by Ajay-p 3y ago
"we make something worth buying." That is interesting. The "buying" ostensibly refers to journalism, which is where IMO the media has failed terribly in the past 2-3 decades. Most of it became too opinionated that the product being sold was no longer news and analysis, but opinions and echo chambers. I think over time people got tired of paying for opinions, but others were content to continue to do so.
A newspaper that read more like analytical research would be more appealing. The media would benefit as a whole, and prosper, if they strove to remove the personal opinions and beliefs from their reporting.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- refulgentis 3y agoThis is a grand vision and diagnosis. It also maintains a studied distance via blanket assertions that are agreeable, and a 100,000 foot view. That makes it hard to discuss directly without seeming disagreeable. Going with Socratic method: Did anything else happen the last 2-3 decades? Anything that would cause tree pulp, that could charge for ads and subscribers, and thus afford to pay more and subsidize longer research, less popular? Or is it just that the media/journalism/etc., these large faceless groups, all just universally started making opinionated content 20-30 years ago? I'm curious: what did media/journalism looked like 50, 70, 100 years ago. Maybe I could look up newspaper front pages from back then. Was it less opinionated?
- metabagel 3y ago> A newspaper that read more like analytical research would be more appealing. Most people want their news in the form of stories, and especially stories about people they can relate to.