4 ms·

>> Here’s another thing holding back the future of news: the notion that “objectivity” is the only model worth pursuing. The practice of gathering all sides of

>> Here’s another thing holding back the future of news: the notion that “objectivity” is the only model worth pursuing. The practice of gathering all sides of an issue, and keeping an editorial voice out of it, is still relevant for some, but the broad journalism opportunity includes many variations of subjectivity. Grantland, to me, has figured this out better than anyone else (at least of the largest journalism endeavors). It helps that Bill Simmons is a pioneer of open subjectivity as a modern journalist, but most of their staff blends some level of subjectivity into their work (even Zach Lowe, who Simmons calls Spock in a reference to his rationality, and who admits to losing his personal team fandom after working as a journalist, has a weekly piece called "10 Things I Like and Don't Like). It also is probably worth noting that, being an ESPN website, they don't really need to worry about breaking news, as they just work closely with the traditional "reporters" of ESPN (although even then, guys like Marc Stein still inject their subjective views a bit). There's a place for old fashioned, unbiased reporting. However, it may be the case that this style of journalism becomes a supplement, existing on Twitter and in interviews, to Andreesen's proposed "marketplace of ideas." The decentralized nature of the internet makes this much more realistic than it was when television and newspapers controlled access to information.

napoleond 13y ago
I respect Marc Andreessen's opinion a lot, but that seems like a dangerous idea to me. Further in the article, he's quoted as saying: "There’s a reason so many newer sites are writing with verve and voice: It works." I think that statement hinges pretty strongly on how we define "working", and I would posit that page views and ad sales should not be the metric by which we measure journalistic success. It's true that technology has made it easier for a lot of people to publish their opinions, and that's fantastic, but there's still enormous merit in having news sources which attempt to present news objectively.
- the_watcher 13y ago
  >>page views and ad sales should not be the metric by which we measure journalistic success. That idea may have some merit, but journalistic success requires investment, which generally requires return, and page views and ad sales (ad sales aren't some new internet thing, either) are generally the fastest ways to generate that. >>there's still enormous merit in having news sources which attempt to present news objectively. He never claims otherwise. He explicitly qualifies his excitement over increased subjectivity in journalism with a claim that objectivity isn't the only worthwhile pursuit. He is simply excited that objectivity isn't the only form of journalism being pursued, not advocating its demise.
  - napoleond 13y ago
    He never claims otherwise. Right, I just think it's a bit weird to laud the increase of subjective reporting when it realistically also represents a decline in objective reporting; an effect which is decidedly not new and could reasonably be argued to be suboptimal. (Don't get me wrong, I am aware that there was no magical era in the history of journalism where reporters were magically unbiased, but I do think that objective reporting is valued less now than it once was, and I think it's unfortunate.) Regarding ad sales; it's true that ads have always existed but in the age of subscription newspapers buying an ad in the more reputable ones cost more. Now page views are king, and long-term objectives of maintaining and increasing journalistic standards are no longer economically justified (or less so, at any rate). The new reality is that producing "viral" content (ie. link bait) is the key to making money in news, and I believe that to be at odds with high quality journalism.
    - the_watcher 13y ago
      >>I just think it's a bit weird to laud the increase of subjective reporting when it realistically also represents a decline in objective reporting. This is only true if you believe that the total amount of "reporting" available is static. That is not true. In fact, it's arguably been the reverse, as the factors that have allowed more subjective reporting have also enabled more to go into objective journalism (just Youtube alone has enabled more to provide truly objective journalism in the form of easy filming). The journalism game is not zero sum. It is likely correct that the percentage of journalism that objective-style journalism has gone down, but it's almost certainly not true that objective-style journalism has decreased in a raw sense (for one, investigative journalism has never been more attainable for those not specifically employed to do so - the fact that there are less writers who are specifically employed to do so doesn't mean the amount occurring has decreased). There is also likely some level of nostalgia-based reasoning here, since prior to the internet, it was substantially easier for those in control of the distribution channels to get away with embellishment, while today, inaccuracies would be caught much faster.
      - napoleond 13y ago

napoleond 13y ago

I respect Marc Andreessen's opinion a lot, but that seems like a dangerous idea to me. Further in the article, he's quoted as saying: "There’s a reason so many newer sites are writing with verve and voice: It works." I think that statement hinges pretty strongly on how we define "working", and I would posit that page views and ad sales should not be the metric by which we measure journalistic success. It's true that technology has made it easier for a lot of people to publish their opinions, and that's fantastic, but there's still enormous merit in having news sources which attempt to present news objectively.

the_watcher 13y ago
>>page views and ad sales should not be the metric by which we measure journalistic success. That idea may have some merit, but journalistic success requires investment, which generally requires return, and page views and ad sales (ad sales aren't some new internet thing, either) are generally the fastest ways to generate that. >>there's still enormous merit in having news sources which attempt to present news objectively. He never claims otherwise. He explicitly qualifies his excitement over increased subjectivity in journalism with a claim that objectivity isn't the only worthwhile pursuit. He is simply excited that objectivity isn't the only form of journalism being pursued, not advocating its demise.
- napoleond 13y ago
  He never claims otherwise. Right, I just think it's a bit weird to laud the increase of subjective reporting when it realistically also represents a decline in objective reporting; an effect which is decidedly not new and could reasonably be argued to be suboptimal. (Don't get me wrong, I am aware that there was no magical era in the history of journalism where reporters were magically unbiased, but I do think that objective reporting is valued less now than it once was, and I think it's unfortunate.) Regarding ad sales; it's true that ads have always existed but in the age of subscription newspapers buying an ad in the more reputable ones cost more. Now page views are king, and long-term objectives of maintaining and increasing journalistic standards are no longer economically justified (or less so, at any rate). The new reality is that producing "viral" content (ie. link bait) is the key to making money in news, and I believe that to be at odds with high quality journalism.
  - the_watcher 13y ago
    >>I just think it's a bit weird to laud the increase of subjective reporting when it realistically also represents a decline in objective reporting. This is only true if you believe that the total amount of "reporting" available is static. That is not true. In fact, it's arguably been the reverse, as the factors that have allowed more subjective reporting have also enabled more to go into objective journalism (just Youtube alone has enabled more to provide truly objective journalism in the form of easy filming). The journalism game is not zero sum. It is likely correct that the percentage of journalism that objective-style journalism has gone down, but it's almost certainly not true that objective-style journalism has decreased in a raw sense (for one, investigative journalism has never been more attainable for those not specifically employed to do so - the fact that there are less writers who are specifically employed to do so doesn't mean the amount occurring has decreased). There is also likely some level of nostalgia-based reasoning here, since prior to the internet, it was substantially easier for those in control of the distribution channels to get away with embellishment, while today, inaccuracies would be caught much faster.
    - napoleond 13y ago