3 ms·
At some point someone is actually doing journalism though (in the best case at least.) News outlets that summarize things from e.g. Reuters or AP tend to have a
by ninkendo 3y ago
At some point someone is actually doing journalism though (in the best case at least.) News outlets that summarize things from e.g. Reuters or AP tend to have agreements which pay money for the information. You could reasonably argue that google should be doing the same, right?
- izacus 3y agoWhoever is doing journalism, it's not those sites that now want a governmental tax handout to continue being bad.
- HDThoreaun 3y agoIt often is though. Many of these sites are employing the journalists who are uncovering the original story.
- dmazzoni 3y agoI think the reality is that journalism was a ridiculously inefficient business. A big national event happens. News organizations collectively send 30 different reporters to the scene. Those 30 reporters each write up a firsthand story. Now hundreds of smaller news organizations (local papers, local TV news stations, etc.) rewrite it in their own words and put it in their version. In the end, for any major story you end up with hundreds of articles being written, but out of those there are only a handful of genuinely different narratives, each retold in slightly different words hundreds of times. It's rare that a local news organization adds any significant value. In my opinion, NPR is the only organization that gets it right: there's a single national organization that does the news at the top of every hour, and local stations then come on to give local news following that. A single national organization does morning and evening long-form news shows with the national shows, and each local station does its own long-form shows with local news. Very little redundancy.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]