4 ms·

Wow. If news is only "content" that exists to sell advertising, then sure, go ahead and believe that there'd be no problem if journalism were to "tear down, or

Wow. If news is only "content" that exists to sell advertising, then sure, go ahead and believe that there'd be no problem if journalism were to "tear down, or at least modify, the 'Chinese wall' between content and the business side." But if news consists, in some significant part, of journalism -- of gathering perspectives and verifying facts and giving voice to stories and ultimately serving as an independent check on government and power -- then it is troubling to think giving up on this is the only future Andreessen sees for news.

splittist 12y ago
An independent check on government and power? Where and when has this happened? I know this is the story journolists (sic) tell themselves, but for all of its adoption of a neutral speaking-truth-to-power self-description, the modern practice of reporting is pretty much in lock-step with (one could almost say 'produces and reproduces') the establishment.
- edanm 12y ago
  What do you consider Watergate? Isn't that usually held up as an example of a check on government?
  - calibraxis 12y ago
    Watergate was an attack against half the US political establishment: one of the business party's two wings (as Chomsky puts it). Instructive because it's a minor attack against a powerful entity, so there's hell to pay. We'd need to consider far worse attacks against the powerless.
  - aasarava 12y ago
    Right. Or if that question isn't current enough, how about: What do you consider the Snowden revelations about the NSA? There may well be a lot of bad, boring, or inconsequential journalism out there designed to generate click-throughs -- the push for this is partly why I left the industry -- but you can look up the list of Pulitzer Prize winners, recent and past, if you need a reminder of why we need an independent press that acts as a public service.
    - splittist 12y ago
      OK. I have contemplated the list of Pulitzer Prizes for Beat Reporting(http://www.pulitzer.org/bycat/Beat-Reporting http://www.pulitzer.org/bycat/Beat-Reporting) as an example, and fail to see anything that doesn't advance the dominant paradigm. If that is what 'public service' means to you then I wonder why we need a whole estate that arrogates such particular privileges to itself.
      - mpyne 12y ago
        > and fail to see anything that doesn't advance the dominant paradigm Speaking truth to power is not congruent to tearing down the dominant paradigm. If you oppose the dominant paradigm, it should be because the dominant paradigm is wrong, not because it's dominant.
        001sky 12y ago
        giving voice to stories and ultimately serving as an independent check on government and power What is this "check" then? SCOTUS checks legislation by throwing it out. Nobody has elected or consented to "journalists" having a constitional role. That being said, the constitution protects the people to talk amongst themselves, so that the electorate is itself effective, and can check power via the ballot box. The issue at hand is the role of money in the "talk amongst yourselves" narrative. And its potential corrupting influence (bascially--buying vote for special interests and PR clients).
- calibraxis 12y ago
  Yes, McChesney looks behind the biases that "objective journalism" hides, with the history which puts Andreesen's article in context. (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/McChesney/Problem_Media_interview.html http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/McChesney/Problem_Media_in...) and (http://monthlyreview.org/2000/11/01/journalism-democracy-and-class-struggle http://monthlyreview.org/2000/11/01/journalism-democracy-and...)
- ilamont 12y ago
  I am a huge cynic of the news industry and the way it often serves the rich, connected, and powerful, but have to acknowledge that some publications and journalists have exposed official wrongdoing and have brought down powerful people and institutions. The example that I always turn to is the expose in my hometown of abuses perpetuated by the Catholic Church in the early 2000s: http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/‎ http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/‎
jjoonathan 12y ago
Yep. He simply asserts that > Paying attention to the business doesn’t equal warped coverage. which would be nice if it were true, but it begs the question of why we should believe that there is a business model out there that doesn't grossly warp coverage (worse than what we already have). The news-focused business models I've seen in the wild warp coverage fairly heavily in directions I don't entirely approve of and it seems that the new models are just as bad if not worse than the old ones. Why should I believe this will change?
- the_watcher 12y ago
  >> why we should believe that there is a business model out there that doesn't grossly warp coverage We should believe that this business model exists if we believe that there is a demand for a truly unbiased, unwarped news outlet. If there is truly a demand, then whatever outlet provides it will be so successful that the business side will have no trouble selling advertisements (or advertorials, which are only a problem to me if not called out - and in many cases just end up functioning as extremely high quality native ads, rather than ruining journalism). The problem arises if there is not a substantial demand for this, but that is much more of a civic problem than a journalism problem. If someone writes perfect, high quality, objective journalism, but no one reads it or even cares to know it exists, what then? My read? Some reporters will be out there, gathering news, and the very best will rise. What we call journalism (editorials and investigative pieces) will remain in existence, but will move to personal blogs, websites of what were once traditional newspapers, and new media (places like Grantland, Slate, The Atlantic's website, Vanity Fair's site, etc.). There will also be a major increase in local, citizen generated coverage of news, and what used to be local newspapers and news stations will becoming aggregators of local content. I don't really think much changes about journalism beyond opening it up to more people and changing the medium/deliverer of news.

splittist 12y ago

An independent check on government and power? Where and when has this happened? I know this is the story journolists (sic) tell themselves, but for all of its adoption of a neutral speaking-truth-to-power self-description, the modern practice of reporting is pretty much in lock-step with (one could almost say 'produces and reproduces') the establishment.

edanm 12y ago
What do you consider Watergate? Isn't that usually held up as an example of a check on government?
- calibraxis 12y ago
  Watergate was an attack against half the US political establishment: one of the business party's two wings (as Chomsky puts it). Instructive because it's a minor attack against a powerful entity, so there's hell to pay. We'd need to consider far worse attacks against the powerless.
- aasarava 12y ago
  Right. Or if that question isn't current enough, how about: What do you consider the Snowden revelations about the NSA? There may well be a lot of bad, boring, or inconsequential journalism out there designed to generate click-throughs -- the push for this is partly why I left the industry -- but you can look up the list of Pulitzer Prize winners, recent and past, if you need a reminder of why we need an independent press that acts as a public service.
  - splittist 12y ago
    OK. I have contemplated the list of Pulitzer Prizes for Beat Reporting(http://www.pulitzer.org/bycat/Beat-Reporting http://www.pulitzer.org/bycat/Beat-Reporting) as an example, and fail to see anything that doesn't advance the dominant paradigm. If that is what 'public service' means to you then I wonder why we need a whole estate that arrogates such particular privileges to itself.
    - mpyne 12y ago
      > and fail to see anything that doesn't advance the dominant paradigm Speaking truth to power is not congruent to tearing down the dominant paradigm. If you oppose the dominant paradigm, it should be because the dominant paradigm is wrong, not because it's dominant.
      - 001sky 12y ago
        giving voice to stories and ultimately serving as an independent check on government and power What is this "check" then? SCOTUS checks legislation by throwing it out. Nobody has elected or consented to "journalists" having a constitional role. That being said, the constitution protects the people to talk amongst themselves, so that the electorate is itself effective, and can check power via the ballot box. The issue at hand is the role of money in the "talk amongst yourselves" narrative. And its potential corrupting influence (bascially--buying vote for special interests and PR clients).
calibraxis 12y ago
Yes, McChesney looks behind the biases that "objective journalism" hides, with the history which puts Andreesen's article in context. (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/McChesney/Problem_Media_interview.html http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/McChesney/Problem_Media_in...) and (http://monthlyreview.org/2000/11/01/journalism-democracy-and-class-struggle http://monthlyreview.org/2000/11/01/journalism-democracy-and...)
ilamont 12y ago
I am a huge cynic of the news industry and the way it often serves the rich, connected, and powerful, but have to acknowledge that some publications and journalists have exposed official wrongdoing and have brought down powerful people and institutions. The example that I always turn to is the expose in my hometown of abuses perpetuated by the Catholic Church in the early 2000s: http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/‎ http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/‎

jjoonathan 12y ago

Yep. He simply asserts that > Paying attention to the business doesn’t equal warped coverage. which would be nice if it were true, but it begs the question of why we should believe that there is a business model out there that doesn't grossly warp coverage (worse than what we already have). The news-focused business models I've seen in the wild warp coverage fairly heavily in directions I don't entirely approve of and it seems that the new models are just as bad if not worse than the old ones. Why should I believe this will change?

the_watcher 12y ago
>> why we should believe that there is a business model out there that doesn't grossly warp coverage We should believe that this business model exists if we believe that there is a demand for a truly unbiased, unwarped news outlet. If there is truly a demand, then whatever outlet provides it will be so successful that the business side will have no trouble selling advertisements (or advertorials, which are only a problem to me if not called out - and in many cases just end up functioning as extremely high quality native ads, rather than ruining journalism). The problem arises if there is not a substantial demand for this, but that is much more of a civic problem than a journalism problem. If someone writes perfect, high quality, objective journalism, but no one reads it or even cares to know it exists, what then? My read? Some reporters will be out there, gathering news, and the very best will rise. What we call journalism (editorials and investigative pieces) will remain in existence, but will move to personal blogs, websites of what were once traditional newspapers, and new media (places like Grantland, Slate, The Atlantic's website, Vanity Fair's site, etc.). There will also be a major increase in local, citizen generated coverage of news, and what used to be local newspapers and news stations will becoming aggregators of local content. I don't really think much changes about journalism beyond opening it up to more people and changing the medium/deliverer of news.