5 ms·

It's not a gift to 18yr olds. It's a gift to the newspaper industry.

by tjic 18y ago

numair 18y ago
Perhaps this is an unpopular opinion, but most significantly wealthy people I know read the newspaper (usually, several newspapers), and I think keeping up-to-date on the world around you is an important part of being a successful member of society (regardless of whether we define that as monetary, intellectual, etc). As such, I would have to say that this is really a gift to the 18 year olds. I often try to explain to my friends in Northern Europe (who are in their late teens, early 20s) that the average American doesn't read the newspaper. They really don't believe me, but then they start to think about it and realize that this is one of the reasons we have such a ridiculous political system. When you have a large populace that doesn't read, their source of news is entirely through sound bites; thus, everything becomes dumbed down and sensational (for example, Howard Dean yells at an event and is suddenly no longer a viable political candidate? WTF?). You can't have a working democracy in a land of illiterates.
- alaskamiller 18y ago
  I believe complacency to be more endemic than illiteracy in America. People consume news in a myriad of ways. Trying to say newspaper reading would resolve some problem is silly.
  - baltoo 18y ago
    Perhaps newspaper reading is not so common and complacency is more widespread in the US, I don't know, but some forms of media are more suited for more in-depth analysis while others are not. I'd say that the newspapers format gives the publisher space enough to give needed details on subjects and the reader can peruse it in the speed one needs to comprehend and analyze it. Actually, this goes for most written media. Of course, newspapers per se don't solve problems but I think that a literate people can make more informed decisions and thus have a greater chance on making good decisions.
    - alaskamiller 18y ago
      Good journalists are good journalist, no matter which medium they use to distribute. You can find good journalism from professionals in print or online or even from bloggers. Going by your standard, every citizen should be required to read BOOKS in order to get the depth of analysis that they sorely need to be wealthy.
      - baltoo 18y ago
        Wealth is neither here or there. Or did you mean intellectual wealth? Well, I'd say that newspapers, in print or online, or blogs are all in writing. Thus more or less equal in potential power. There we seem to at least mostly agree. I guess I was guessing that if people in the US didn't read newspapers they got at least some information from alternative sources. The ones I could quickly think of where all non-written, e.g. TV or youtube. Those would, in contrast to the written ones, generally not be as well suited for in depth analysis. My guess could, of course, be widely off.
- Tichy 18y ago
  - why not read newspapers on the internet? - newspapers are not in the business to inform, they are in the business of selling newspapers - often newspapers are owned by entities with their own interests, who by use of the newspaper try to manipulate public opinion
  - yummyfajitas 18y ago
    Newspapers are in the business of selling ads. They only require you to buy the newspaper as a filter to make sure you don't take a newspaper without reading it.
timr 18y ago
Very droll. Still, I'd rather prop up an industry that's designed to inform, educate and expose corruption in the world, than prop up industries that do little but feed our unsustainable, consumptive habits. Given that at least 50% of the compelling things I read on this site originated in the New York Times, it strikes me as more than a bit ironic that so many of the comments here are dismissing the unfortunate fate of the news media. All the social networks in the world won't make up for the loss of our newspapers.
- gaius 18y ago
  Umm, the newspaper industry is designed to sell ads. The news (which is usually more accurately described as opinion) exists only to get your eyeballs in front of the ads. Next you'll be telling me that Google is in the search business. Advertisers are Google's customers. You are Google's product.
- jerf 18y ago
  "Still, I'd rather prop up an industry that's designed to inform, educate and expose corruption in the world, than prop up industries that do little but feed our unsustainable, consumptive habits." Expanding on gaius' point, if they actually did those things more frequently, maybe they wouldn't need propping up. Instead they are actually "designed" to do the latter. "Given that at least 50% of the compelling things I read on this site originated in the New York Times," I call foul. As I write this, there's one thing on the front page from there, and only 4 in the top 100. If that ratio is correct, you should stop reading HN and just cut straight to the NYT.
  - timr 18y ago
    "if they actually did those things more frequently, maybe they wouldn't need propping up." This sounds suspiciously like a version of the old "liberal media" complaint, but regardless, it's fundamentally wrong. The news media is not failing because of some problem with the quality of its product -- it's failing because the web has made impression advertising so utterly worthless that it's becoming impossible to profitably maintain an advertising-supported business that provides professionally produced content to niche audiences.

It's not a gift to 18yr olds. It's a gift to the newspaper industry.

by tjic 18y ago

It's not a gift to 18yr olds. It's a gift to the newspaper industry.

Perhaps this is an unpopular opinion, but most significantly wealthy people I know read the newspaper (usually, several newspapers), and I think keeping up-to-date on the world around you is an important part of being a successful member of society (regardless of whether we define that as monetary, intellectual, etc). As such, I would have to say that this is really a gift to the 18 year olds. I often try to explain to my friends in Northern Europe (who are in their late teens, early 20s) that the average American doesn't read the newspaper. They really don't believe me, but then they start to think about it and realize that this is one of the reasons we have such a ridiculous political system. When you have a large populace that doesn't read, their source of news is entirely through sound bites; thus, everything becomes dumbed down and sensational (for example, Howard Dean yells at an event and is suddenly no longer a viable political candidate? WTF?). You can't have a working democracy in a land of illiterates.

alaskamiller 18y ago
I believe complacency to be more endemic than illiteracy in America. People consume news in a myriad of ways. Trying to say newspaper reading would resolve some problem is silly.
- baltoo 18y ago
  Perhaps newspaper reading is not so common and complacency is more widespread in the US, I don't know, but some forms of media are more suited for more in-depth analysis while others are not. I'd say that the newspapers format gives the publisher space enough to give needed details on subjects and the reader can peruse it in the speed one needs to comprehend and analyze it. Actually, this goes for most written media. Of course, newspapers per se don't solve problems but I think that a literate people can make more informed decisions and thus have a greater chance on making good decisions.
  - alaskamiller 18y ago
    Good journalists are good journalist, no matter which medium they use to distribute. You can find good journalism from professionals in print or online or even from bloggers. Going by your standard, every citizen should be required to read BOOKS in order to get the depth of analysis that they sorely need to be wealthy.
    - baltoo 18y ago
      Wealth is neither here or there. Or did you mean intellectual wealth? Well, I'd say that newspapers, in print or online, or blogs are all in writing. Thus more or less equal in potential power. There we seem to at least mostly agree. I guess I was guessing that if people in the US didn't read newspapers they got at least some information from alternative sources. The ones I could quickly think of where all non-written, e.g. TV or youtube. Those would, in contrast to the written ones, generally not be as well suited for in depth analysis. My guess could, of course, be widely off.
Tichy 18y ago
- why not read newspapers on the internet? - newspapers are not in the business to inform, they are in the business of selling newspapers - often newspapers are owned by entities with their own interests, who by use of the newspaper try to manipulate public opinion
- yummyfajitas 18y ago
  Newspapers are in the business of selling ads. They only require you to buy the newspaper as a filter to make sure you don't take a newspaper without reading it.

timr 18y ago

Very droll. Still, I'd rather prop up an industry that's designed to inform, educate and expose corruption in the world, than prop up industries that do little but feed our unsustainable, consumptive habits. Given that at least 50% of the compelling things I read on this site originated in the New York Times, it strikes me as more than a bit ironic that so many of the comments here are dismissing the unfortunate fate of the news media. All the social networks in the world won't make up for the loss of our newspapers.

gaius 18y ago
Umm, the newspaper industry is designed to sell ads. The news (which is usually more accurately described as opinion) exists only to get your eyeballs in front of the ads. Next you'll be telling me that Google is in the search business. Advertisers are Google's customers. You are Google's product.
jerf 18y ago
"Still, I'd rather prop up an industry that's designed to inform, educate and expose corruption in the world, than prop up industries that do little but feed our unsustainable, consumptive habits." Expanding on gaius' point, if they actually did those things more frequently, maybe they wouldn't need propping up. Instead they are actually "designed" to do the latter. "Given that at least 50% of the compelling things I read on this site originated in the New York Times," I call foul. As I write this, there's one thing on the front page from there, and only 4 in the top 100. If that ratio is correct, you should stop reading HN and just cut straight to the NYT.
- timr 18y ago
  "if they actually did those things more frequently, maybe they wouldn't need propping up." This sounds suspiciously like a version of the old "liberal media" complaint, but regardless, it's fundamentally wrong. The news media is not failing because of some problem with the quality of its product -- it's failing because the web has made impression advertising so utterly worthless that it's becoming impossible to profitably maintain an advertising-supported business that provides professionally produced content to niche audiences.