2 ms·

> Most contemporary journalism is just not worth archiving. I don't agree. There are many interesting tidbits which go unnoticed as bog-standard / disposable n

> Most contemporary journalism is just not worth archiving. I don't agree. There are many interesting tidbits which go unnoticed as bog-standard / disposable news until the dots connect in the future, and one wants to construct the history backwards from that tipping point. When these "contemporary articles" go missing, many important details of the history is lost.

brisketbbq 2y ago
Are you really interested in reading a 50 year old newspaper article about a collision that happened midday on Saturday afternoon in your community newspaper?
- xp84 2y ago
  Of course not. BUT on the other hand that particular collision may become highly relevant in those 50 years. Imagine your own scenario where the facts reported on the day might conflict with something claimed to be true much later, and the person wasn’t notable at the time but they’re highly notable now. The issue is we don’t know what may be important after many years, decades or centuries have passed. Given how easily text compresses, it would be a shame to not have at least text of real news sources archived perpetually. I know there is also an endless stream of listicles which are just generated to get clicks and ad views, but newspapers are worth archiving.
  - brisketbbq 2y ago
    > Imagine your own scenario where the facts reported on the day might conflict with something claimed to be true much later, and the person wasn’t notable at the time but they’re highly notable now. I do see your point. I'm reminded of the photograph who snapped basically a digital throw away picture of Monica Lewinsky weeks/months/years before anyone really knew who she was. later on, he was happy to have that picture, since it was one (or the only one) of her at some event hugging Clinton. Text is easy enough to store, but making it useful to search and access seems like another problem to solve.
ghaff 2y ago
The challenge is that it's hard to know. One of the people who recovered a lot of old Usenet archives once remarked that the reality was that no one cares about the details of some long ago SunOS bug whereas a lot of the cultural discussions about government policies etc. provide a window into the time.
sirspacey 2y ago
I’d challenge you to find one article where this is the case. Almost all “journalism” today is opinion notifications without substance, source, or first hand accounts. I suppose that’s its own kind of historical artifact, but not the kind I’ve seen be meaningful in my study of history.
- notaustinpowers 2y ago
  Who knows, maybe in the future one of those opinion pieces may be the first digital record about a specific topic found by some future civilization. In the same way that the Complaint Tablet to Ea-Nāṣir doesn't provide much historical value, but is interesting in being the oldest written customer complaint. History isn't just about the big things. The history of the mundane is also important in understanding a culture.

brisketbbq 2y ago

Are you really interested in reading a 50 year old newspaper article about a collision that happened midday on Saturday afternoon in your community newspaper?

xp84 2y ago
Of course not. BUT on the other hand that particular collision may become highly relevant in those 50 years. Imagine your own scenario where the facts reported on the day might conflict with something claimed to be true much later, and the person wasn’t notable at the time but they’re highly notable now. The issue is we don’t know what may be important after many years, decades or centuries have passed. Given how easily text compresses, it would be a shame to not have at least text of real news sources archived perpetually. I know there is also an endless stream of listicles which are just generated to get clicks and ad views, but newspapers are worth archiving.
- brisketbbq 2y ago
  > Imagine your own scenario where the facts reported on the day might conflict with something claimed to be true much later, and the person wasn’t notable at the time but they’re highly notable now. I do see your point. I'm reminded of the photograph who snapped basically a digital throw away picture of Monica Lewinsky weeks/months/years before anyone really knew who she was. later on, he was happy to have that picture, since it was one (or the only one) of her at some event hugging Clinton. Text is easy enough to store, but making it useful to search and access seems like another problem to solve.

ghaff 2y ago

The challenge is that it's hard to know. One of the people who recovered a lot of old Usenet archives once remarked that the reality was that no one cares about the details of some long ago SunOS bug whereas a lot of the cultural discussions about government policies etc. provide a window into the time.

sirspacey 2y ago

I’d challenge you to find one article where this is the case. Almost all “journalism” today is opinion notifications without substance, source, or first hand accounts. I suppose that’s its own kind of historical artifact, but not the kind I’ve seen be meaningful in my study of history.

notaustinpowers 2y ago
Who knows, maybe in the future one of those opinion pieces may be the first digital record about a specific topic found by some future civilization. In the same way that the Complaint Tablet to Ea-Nāṣir doesn't provide much historical value, but is interesting in being the oldest written customer complaint. History isn't just about the big things. The history of the mundane is also important in understanding a culture.