3 ms·

This is ignoring the question of "what is the value of news for most people?" It is clearly of high value for people that can to make informed decisions. Unfo

by taeric 2y ago

This is ignoring the question of "what is the value of news for most people?" It is clearly of high value for people that can to make informed decisions. Unfortunately, most decisions people are making are not informed by the news. Such that any attempt to get people to pay for it will be difficult.

dredmorbius 2y ago
That's a good insight, and suggests another: for whom is the news of significant value? What I've noticed both through my own experience and research of the history of journalism is that business news has, in general tended to be far more reliable then general-consumption news, if also strongly self-serving to the interests of business and fiance. Amongst the best quality news sources that I find presently are the Economist and Financial Times, with Foreign Policy also standing high. The Wall Street Journal had a very strong (if of course pro-business) reputation when it was still owned by the Dow Jones corporation, somewhat less so of late. Newswires such as AP, Reuters, and AFP are also generally quite good. You can also find regional business news publications of high quality and relevance, especially as compared with their non-business local counterparts. In debunking a century-plus old hoax (the "Banker's Manifesto") a few years back, one of the more amusing bits I'd found was that of all the claims it made, one which was more easily addressed was a mention-in-passing of the failures of several banks. It turns out that of all the things that a bank-centric publication is interested in, it's the solvency of financial institutions, and the bulk of any given issue addressed insolvencies and failures, of which those mentioned in the (bogus) manifesto made no appearance... I suspect that a large reason for greater relevance and accuracy is that business news tends to be actionable to businesses, executives, and managers. I also suspect that misquotations and misrepresentations of interviews tend to get sharp responses. By contrast, the principle operating principle of a mass-market paper is to maximise circulation and eyeballs. At the worst of the Penny Papers this lead to outright hoaxes (e.g., the Great Moon Hoax: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Moon_Hoax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Moon_Hoax>). And of course, with large circulations it was also possible to steer public opinion (e.g., exploiting the explosion of the USS Maine to incite the Spanish-American war by Hearst and Pulitzer: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Maine_(1889)#Yellow_journalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Maine_(1889)#Yellow_journa...>). But I'd suggest that the population for whom quality, relevant news is of high interest is relatively small.
- taeric 2y ago
  That last line is one I was aiming at, but I do not have any way to quantify it. I used to want to try and make the news valuable to myself. I have yet to find a way to do that, though. Such that I am unlikely to want to pay for it anytime soon. Would be neat to consider ways I could start making the news of more personal value.
  - dredmorbius 2y ago
    You could probably get a fair way to quantifying that by looking at premium news-publication subscription rates, and making allowances for domestic vs. international readership. There's also the 15% subscribership rate amongst NPR listeners, which suggests to me a hard-core media consumer segment. That percentage has been steady for decades, and if anything has fallen somewhat as NPR's overall listenership has expanded. The hard-core news segment is probably on the order of 1--5% of the population. Circulation of WSJ and NYT, print and online, is roughly 3m and 7m respectively. That's from a total US adult population of ~300m, or about 1--2% of population for each. I suspect a fair bit of overlap in subscriptions. How much of this is a matter of interest, willingness to pay, ability to pay, or ability to access news through other means/channels, I don't know.
- eduction 2y ago
  You’re wrong to suggest the Journal is no longer owned by Dow Jones. Maybe you’re referring to the fact that until about 16 years ago Dow Jones was owned by the Bancroft family, then it was acquired by News Corp (Rupert Murdoch). I think the quality has remained quite high, and the rather robust subscription numbers bear that out (millions of people paying $40/month is impressive). It helps that the WSJ news staff resisted the temptation to abandon objectivity as at NYT. The FT and Economist are nice but FT newsroom is an order of magnitude smaller than WSJ and the Economist an order of magnitude smaller than that (if you’re subscriber who checks daily you’ll know this). Of the three I’d keep WSJ if I had to choose. FT is very nice for an international perspective though. Economist for high level summary.
  - dredmorbius 2y ago
asdff 2y ago
If you are making informed decisions about something you should not be looking at the news for information. You should be looking at data.
- notdang 2y ago
  Good luck looking for data and ignoring news when you country and worse, the region where you live is being invaded by the neighbor and you need to make an informed decision to stay or to leave.
  - taeric 2y ago
    This is all kind of my point? There is some data in most newspapers that is of interest to folks and could be used. Sports scores, basic weather, fashion trends, etc. However, if that is actually something you are using to make a decision, you are almost certainly able to get the data in a more rapid and actionable way. You won't be waiting for it to show up in the general news. Similarly, at a state level, you know they are the same. They have data feeds that are not released to the public. Which brings us back to my point, what is there of value in the news for most people? I can think of very little personal value there. Now, I can see great political and public value in making sure you have an informed population. Such that I am not claiming there is no value in it. Hard to show a direct bottom line value to individuals, though. And we are discussing why individuals won't pay.
  - asdff 2y ago
    You'd trust the news over a government evacuation order though? I certainly wouldn't. The news does a terrible job of covering war, especially now a days where it seems there are fewer embedded journalists actually on the front lines versus just covering a generals press conference dozens of miles away from any action.

by taeric 2y ago

dredmorbius 2y ago

That's a good insight, and suggests another: for whom is the news of significant value? What I've noticed both through my own experience and research of the history of journalism is that business news has, in general tended to be far more reliable then general-consumption news, if also strongly self-serving to the interests of business and fiance. Amongst the best quality news sources that I find presently are the Economist and Financial Times, with Foreign Policy also standing high. The Wall Street Journal had a very strong (if of course pro-business) reputation when it was still owned by the Dow Jones corporation, somewhat less so of late. Newswires such as AP, Reuters, and AFP are also generally quite good. You can also find regional business news publications of high quality and relevance, especially as compared with their non-business local counterparts. In debunking a century-plus old hoax (the "Banker's Manifesto") a few years back, one of the more amusing bits I'd found was that of all the claims it made, one which was more easily addressed was a mention-in-passing of the failures of several banks. It turns out that of all the things that a bank-centric publication is interested in, it's the solvency of financial institutions, and the bulk of any given issue addressed insolvencies and failures, of which those mentioned in the (bogus) manifesto made no appearance... I suspect that a large reason for greater relevance and accuracy is that business news tends to be actionable to businesses, executives, and managers. I also suspect that misquotations and misrepresentations of interviews tend to get sharp responses. By contrast, the principle operating principle of a mass-market paper is to maximise circulation and eyeballs. At the worst of the Penny Papers this lead to outright hoaxes (e.g., the Great Moon Hoax: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Moon_Hoax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Moon_Hoax>). And of course, with large circulations it was also possible to steer public opinion (e.g., exploiting the explosion of the USS Maine to incite the Spanish-American war by Hearst and Pulitzer: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Maine_(1889)#Yellow_journalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Maine_(1889)#Yellow_journa...>). But I'd suggest that the population for whom quality, relevant news is of high interest is relatively small.

taeric 2y ago
That last line is one I was aiming at, but I do not have any way to quantify it. I used to want to try and make the news valuable to myself. I have yet to find a way to do that, though. Such that I am unlikely to want to pay for it anytime soon. Would be neat to consider ways I could start making the news of more personal value.
- dredmorbius 2y ago
  You could probably get a fair way to quantifying that by looking at premium news-publication subscription rates, and making allowances for domestic vs. international readership. There's also the 15% subscribership rate amongst NPR listeners, which suggests to me a hard-core media consumer segment. That percentage has been steady for decades, and if anything has fallen somewhat as NPR's overall listenership has expanded. The hard-core news segment is probably on the order of 1--5% of the population. Circulation of WSJ and NYT, print and online, is roughly 3m and 7m respectively. That's from a total US adult population of ~300m, or about 1--2% of population for each. I suspect a fair bit of overlap in subscriptions. How much of this is a matter of interest, willingness to pay, ability to pay, or ability to access news through other means/channels, I don't know.
eduction 2y ago
You’re wrong to suggest the Journal is no longer owned by Dow Jones. Maybe you’re referring to the fact that until about 16 years ago Dow Jones was owned by the Bancroft family, then it was acquired by News Corp (Rupert Murdoch). I think the quality has remained quite high, and the rather robust subscription numbers bear that out (millions of people paying $40/month is impressive). It helps that the WSJ news staff resisted the temptation to abandon objectivity as at NYT. The FT and Economist are nice but FT newsroom is an order of magnitude smaller than WSJ and the Economist an order of magnitude smaller than that (if you’re subscriber who checks daily you’ll know this). Of the three I’d keep WSJ if I had to choose. FT is very nice for an international perspective though. Economist for high level summary.
- dredmorbius 2y ago

asdff 2y ago

If you are making informed decisions about something you should not be looking at the news for information. You should be looking at data.

notdang 2y ago
Good luck looking for data and ignoring news when you country and worse, the region where you live is being invaded by the neighbor and you need to make an informed decision to stay or to leave.
- taeric 2y ago
  This is all kind of my point? There is some data in most newspapers that is of interest to folks and could be used. Sports scores, basic weather, fashion trends, etc. However, if that is actually something you are using to make a decision, you are almost certainly able to get the data in a more rapid and actionable way. You won't be waiting for it to show up in the general news. Similarly, at a state level, you know they are the same. They have data feeds that are not released to the public. Which brings us back to my point, what is there of value in the news for most people? I can think of very little personal value there. Now, I can see great political and public value in making sure you have an informed population. Such that I am not claiming there is no value in it. Hard to show a direct bottom line value to individuals, though. And we are discussing why individuals won't pay.
- asdff 2y ago
  You'd trust the news over a government evacuation order though? I certainly wouldn't. The news does a terrible job of covering war, especially now a days where it seems there are fewer embedded journalists actually on the front lines versus just covering a generals press conference dozens of miles away from any action.