4 ms·

It's crazy to me as well, but I suppose this might be a case of the rights to this video being sold exclusively to CBS or something?

beezlebroxxxxxx 2y ago
It's annoying, but it looks like the original story came from The Charlotte Observer and was distributed through Tribune Content Agency, a syndication agency. That probably limits the embeds in the story. You also need to get permission to show the video (at least reputable sources will seek permission from the original creator). Phys.org might not be contractually or logistically able to get those permissions and add the video to the page.
shiroiushi 2y ago
In this case, perhaps. But what I'm complaining about is much more broad than that: what I see so often in modern "journalism" is they'll spew a bunch of words about something, but photographs of whatever they're referring to are conspicuously absent, or there's not nearly enough to properly supplement the commentary. It shouldn't be hard to take a handful of decent photos and attach them to the article, but for some reason, many articles I see lately just don't have the number of photographs that seem justified. It's even worse these days when you consider the zero-cost of photography. 50+ years ago it made sense for there to be few, if any, photographs: they were expensive to take (film, developing), and operating a camera took some training and skill (you needed a proper 35mm camera for print-quality photos, and a manual SLR isn't something any idiot knows how to use effectively). Now, any smartphone will take thousands of photos, and any idiot can take photos good enough to be printed, so there's really no excuse. And printing costs are zero too: I'm guessing it cost extra money to print photos 50+ years ago in magazines and newspapers, but now it's all digital so there's no incremental cost to include more photos. And that's just photos. Video is pretty easy and free too, now that we have YouTube.
- tomcam 2y ago
  Margins in journalism are so compressed in the USA that very few of your expectations can be met. Only heavy advertisers like pharma, autos, etc can expect semi-decent coverage
rfwhyte 2y ago
No, it's more that the so called "Journalists" have directives from their editors and corporate overlords to never link to any external content that might see people who could be reading the article and thus served ads leave the site. It's purely profit motivated, and results in long winded articles describing a video where just simply watching the video itself would be infinitely more useful / informative.

beezlebroxxxxxx 2y ago

It's annoying, but it looks like the original story came from The Charlotte Observer and was distributed through Tribune Content Agency, a syndication agency. That probably limits the embeds in the story. You also need to get permission to show the video (at least reputable sources will seek permission from the original creator). Phys.org might not be contractually or logistically able to get those permissions and add the video to the page.

shiroiushi 2y ago

In this case, perhaps. But what I'm complaining about is much more broad than that: what I see so often in modern "journalism" is they'll spew a bunch of words about something, but photographs of whatever they're referring to are conspicuously absent, or there's not nearly enough to properly supplement the commentary. It shouldn't be hard to take a handful of decent photos and attach them to the article, but for some reason, many articles I see lately just don't have the number of photographs that seem justified. It's even worse these days when you consider the zero-cost of photography. 50+ years ago it made sense for there to be few, if any, photographs: they were expensive to take (film, developing), and operating a camera took some training and skill (you needed a proper 35mm camera for print-quality photos, and a manual SLR isn't something any idiot knows how to use effectively). Now, any smartphone will take thousands of photos, and any idiot can take photos good enough to be printed, so there's really no excuse. And printing costs are zero too: I'm guessing it cost extra money to print photos 50+ years ago in magazines and newspapers, but now it's all digital so there's no incremental cost to include more photos. And that's just photos. Video is pretty easy and free too, now that we have YouTube.

tomcam 2y ago
Margins in journalism are so compressed in the USA that very few of your expectations can be met. Only heavy advertisers like pharma, autos, etc can expect semi-decent coverage

rfwhyte 2y ago

No, it's more that the so called "Journalists" have directives from their editors and corporate overlords to never link to any external content that might see people who could be reading the article and thus served ads leave the site. It's purely profit motivated, and results in long winded articles describing a video where just simply watching the video itself would be infinitely more useful / informative.