3 ms·

I think there's probably more of a demand for high-quality journalism now than there's ever been, but I definitely think people's ability to appreciate it isn't

I think there's probably more of a demand for high-quality journalism now than there's ever been, but I definitely think people's ability to appreciate it isn't there. Plenty of people would like to be able to read a 5,000 word essay, but simply can't. And that's why I think focusing on the written word itself as the vehicle for high-quality journalism is a mistake. I don't think that's the only way to do it.

alexismadrigal 14y ago
Yeah, but it's the only cheap way. Video costs like 10x more than text to produce. (NB: I'm an editor at The Atlantic and I love video and I love text.)
- beatpanda 14y ago
  Ha! I know you, we've worked together. I was on the web team for Longshot Magazine in 2011. How expensive can it be if you guys are getting content for free in exchange for "exposure" ;) I'm also not talking about video. I'm talking about interactive storytelling that combines interactive elements with strong narrative elements that gives people the ability to explore, and that can grow over time. It might cost more to produce, but it also isn't a one-shot thing. If you were to take what the Atlantic did on gun violence and you had built something a little more substantial around it, something that broke outside of the web template, and committed to adding to it over time, you could continue extracting value out of it for a long time. When things like "explainers" are produced, they usually sort of fade away after a while because they're released in the same episodic format most journalism is, even though they don't really work the same way. For instance, This American Life's "Giant Pool of Money" is as relevant now as it was when it was produced, but to find it you have to look in a date-based archive. That doesn't make any sense.
  - chc 14y ago
    If you're getting content for free in exchange for "exposure," are we really talking about high-quality journalism? My experience has been that while they aren't always at cross-purposes, relying on that sort of thing to stay afloat doesn't lead in the direction of consistent, high-quality journalism.
    - rhizome 14y ago
      The value of "exposure" is never as valuable as the offerer says. "It'll be good for your portfolio!" is a hoary joke in the creative and producer fields, which gets touched on here in "business founder vs. technical founder" threads, not to mention the entire animating principle of hackathons.
klint 14y ago
Another possibility: the demand for high quality journalism is as high, or higher, than it's ever been. But the demand for tabloid journalism is also higher than ever. It's easier than ever to graze on low quality, tabloid journalism -- "linkbait," if you will. Sensational headlines and puff pieces have always existed, and has always helped sell both tabloids and even more respected publications. But the web and social media make it easier to indulge in this sort of thing, and once you've clicked on one bit of linkbait -- or even a serious news story -- you're presented with a list of additional linkbaity stories. Given the high demand, and low cost to produce, it's little wonder we see more and more churnalism and linkbait.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]

alexismadrigal 14y ago

Yeah, but it's the only cheap way. Video costs like 10x more than text to produce. (NB: I'm an editor at The Atlantic and I love video and I love text.)

beatpanda 14y ago
Ha! I know you, we've worked together. I was on the web team for Longshot Magazine in 2011. How expensive can it be if you guys are getting content for free in exchange for "exposure" ;) I'm also not talking about video. I'm talking about interactive storytelling that combines interactive elements with strong narrative elements that gives people the ability to explore, and that can grow over time. It might cost more to produce, but it also isn't a one-shot thing. If you were to take what the Atlantic did on gun violence and you had built something a little more substantial around it, something that broke outside of the web template, and committed to adding to it over time, you could continue extracting value out of it for a long time. When things like "explainers" are produced, they usually sort of fade away after a while because they're released in the same episodic format most journalism is, even though they don't really work the same way. For instance, This American Life's "Giant Pool of Money" is as relevant now as it was when it was produced, but to find it you have to look in a date-based archive. That doesn't make any sense.
- chc 14y ago
  If you're getting content for free in exchange for "exposure," are we really talking about high-quality journalism? My experience has been that while they aren't always at cross-purposes, relying on that sort of thing to stay afloat doesn't lead in the direction of consistent, high-quality journalism.
  - rhizome 14y ago
    The value of "exposure" is never as valuable as the offerer says. "It'll be good for your portfolio!" is a hoary joke in the creative and producer fields, which gets touched on here in "business founder vs. technical founder" threads, not to mention the entire animating principle of hackathons.

klint 14y ago

Another possibility: the demand for high quality journalism is as high, or higher, than it's ever been. But the demand for tabloid journalism is also higher than ever. It's easier than ever to graze on low quality, tabloid journalism -- "linkbait," if you will. Sensational headlines and puff pieces have always existed, and has always helped sell both tabloids and even more respected publications. But the web and social media make it easier to indulge in this sort of thing, and once you've clicked on one bit of linkbait -- or even a serious news story -- you're presented with a list of additional linkbaity stories. Given the high demand, and low cost to produce, it's little wonder we see more and more churnalism and linkbait.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]