3 ms·

And that's exactly what's wrong with such publications these days. Linkbait takes preference over accuracy. That's not journalism anymore, far from it.

by bobsoap 14y ago

prewett 14y ago
It's not just "these days." Journalism has always suffered from linkbait, although they called it other things, like "sensationalism," back in The Day. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism. Even the august Joseph Pulitzer engaged in it.
- bobsoap 14y ago
  Good point. I think the main difference between then and now is that back then, it was easier to identify yellow journalism. Pulitzer started sensationalism by printing caricatures on the front page, if I recall correctly. Polarizing and wild imagery then went on to become one of the things that helped you spot trash easily from miles away. That characteristic slowly became more and more ubiquitous... in the internet age, linkbait became Pulitzer's cartoons because that's what attracts attention. So I'd say it's become a little harder these days to identify sensationalism as such, because sometimes, there's not much about the appearance of the publication that screams 'yellow journalism' anymore... The cartoon has moved into the content itself.
dingfeng_quek 14y ago
You got it for free - why should you expect more? If there's a demand for accurate, well-supported, and much harder-to-produce news and commentary, which someone is willing to pay for, many journalists would be happier as well. This, however, is a free publication that (simplifying) earns on a per-view basis. Perhaps there already exists another source of information that's accurate, but behind a paywall.
- novalis 14y ago
  I don't think we should act like there aren't any quality freely distributed reporting sources. Someone paying for content can have the perception that it is worthy and better than other models, but that often leads to comsumption of more targeted content that fits the internal level of bias and doesn't necessarily make it to be of higher journalistic quality. These both considerations shape the content industry, and none of them are "free" models. Ignorance, in communication, is not an externality that we can afford in this day and age.
- bobsoap 14y ago
  There are plenty of monetization models besides trashy linkbait and paywalls that are capable of producing great results. I agree with you that, as a consumer, if you get something for free, it's actually you who is the product. But there are many facets in the quality/trash spectrum and there are quite a few good examples of successful business models that are "free" yet produce good quality.

And that's exactly what's wrong with such publications these days. Linkbait takes preference over accuracy. That's not journalism anymore, far from it.

by bobsoap 14y ago

And that's exactly what's wrong with such publications these days. Linkbait takes preference over accuracy. That's not journalism anymore, far from it.

prewett 14y ago

It's not just "these days." Journalism has always suffered from linkbait, although they called it other things, like "sensationalism," back in The Day. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism. Even the august Joseph Pulitzer engaged in it.

bobsoap 14y ago
Good point. I think the main difference between then and now is that back then, it was easier to identify yellow journalism. Pulitzer started sensationalism by printing caricatures on the front page, if I recall correctly. Polarizing and wild imagery then went on to become one of the things that helped you spot trash easily from miles away. That characteristic slowly became more and more ubiquitous... in the internet age, linkbait became Pulitzer's cartoons because that's what attracts attention. So I'd say it's become a little harder these days to identify sensationalism as such, because sometimes, there's not much about the appearance of the publication that screams 'yellow journalism' anymore... The cartoon has moved into the content itself.

dingfeng_quek 14y ago

You got it for free - why should you expect more? If there's a demand for accurate, well-supported, and much harder-to-produce news and commentary, which someone is willing to pay for, many journalists would be happier as well. This, however, is a free publication that (simplifying) earns on a per-view basis. Perhaps there already exists another source of information that's accurate, but behind a paywall.

novalis 14y ago
I don't think we should act like there aren't any quality freely distributed reporting sources. Someone paying for content can have the perception that it is worthy and better than other models, but that often leads to comsumption of more targeted content that fits the internal level of bias and doesn't necessarily make it to be of higher journalistic quality. These both considerations shape the content industry, and none of them are "free" models. Ignorance, in communication, is not an externality that we can afford in this day and age.
bobsoap 14y ago
There are plenty of monetization models besides trashy linkbait and paywalls that are capable of producing great results. I agree with you that, as a consumer, if you get something for free, it's actually you who is the product. But there are many facets in the quality/trash spectrum and there are quite a few good examples of successful business models that are "free" yet produce good quality.