5 ms·

I think it's a case where modern journalists (and in many other parts of society) find a hypothesis they think will do well and hunt for leads/studies/data that

I think it's a case where modern journalists (and in many other parts of society) find a hypothesis they think will do well and hunt for leads/studies/data that fit the hypothesis. It's easier to do because you only need to do as much research as to prove the outcome demands, and does better with the readers because they're interested in the result less with how they got there. It's like going out as a hunter knowing your only goal is to hunt a buck. You know what you're hunting, so you can prep accordingly with the deer call horns and other paraphernalia. Good journalism - something I believe was done more by the journalists of the past - go out to interesting places and talk to interesting people to gather whatever they can, and find a good story within that. In terms of the hunter analogy, it's more like laying a whole bunch of traps, be it fish, bird, beaver or bear, and seeing what you end up with at the end of the day. You might not always get what your readers want, but it's also more fulfilling and often important when you land a prize catch.

aeturnum 2y ago
I suspect a lot of it is driven by the decline of the financial health of journalism as well. I think this sort of story is often one that fits the prejudices of a lot of readers (certainly the author of this article is arguing their perspective was omitted because it did not fit expectations) and is likely to be popular. That lines up with a lot of research about how peoples like having their existing beliefs confirmed and are resistant to being challenged. I imagine that, if you are a journalist who won't do this kind of piece on occasion, your numbers suffer and you either need to be very good at your job, or you suffer professionally and are more likely to leave. So a lot of the journalists who stay are ones who often can do good work, but also do some hack work sometimes on some topics. I think a reason this seemed less common in the past (or maybe just less obvious) was we had a very different media climate with less immediate feedback. Internal opinions on the quality of work probably mattered more - and you had less opportunity to see how many people were clicking on your colleague's story an hour after being published.

aeturnum 2y ago

I suspect a lot of it is driven by the decline of the financial health of journalism as well. I think this sort of story is often one that fits the prejudices of a lot of readers (certainly the author of this article is arguing their perspective was omitted because it did not fit expectations) and is likely to be popular. That lines up with a lot of research about how peoples like having their existing beliefs confirmed and are resistant to being challenged. I imagine that, if you are a journalist who won't do this kind of piece on occasion, your numbers suffer and you either need to be very good at your job, or you suffer professionally and are more likely to leave. So a lot of the journalists who stay are ones who often can do good work, but also do some hack work sometimes on some topics. I think a reason this seemed less common in the past (or maybe just less obvious) was we had a very different media climate with less immediate feedback. Internal opinions on the quality of work probably mattered more - and you had less opportunity to see how many people were clicking on your colleague's story an hour after being published.