3 ms·

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

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 12y 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 12y ago
  Bear in mind that the rapidly increasing supply for news does not change the relatively fixed demand. Also, while the barriers to production have diminished, the barriers to distribution (I mean actually getting in front of eyeballs, not merely the potential for such) are still limited by either that "virality" component or money. As for nostalgia; people control distribution channels today, too, but that's somewhat orthogonal to my point.
smcnally 12y ago
I believe I understand what you're saying. But there's been very little objective reporting through the entire course of history. Humans have biases, preconceptions and filters. History, itself, is the record written by the victors. w/r/t journalism, this is evidenced via word choices, areas of focus and emphasis, paths followed up or left alone. Read two reports of the same trial testimony. Read coverage of a basketball game by two journalism outfits you respect. They won't be identical. They'll vary widely on some points. Humans are subjective, journalists are humans, their reportage is on a spectrum of subjectivity. Believing otherwise could be harmful.

the_watcher 12y 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 12y ago
Bear in mind that the rapidly increasing supply for news does not change the relatively fixed demand. Also, while the barriers to production have diminished, the barriers to distribution (I mean actually getting in front of eyeballs, not merely the potential for such) are still limited by either that "virality" component or money. As for nostalgia; people control distribution channels today, too, but that's somewhat orthogonal to my point.

smcnally 12y ago

I believe I understand what you're saying. But there's been very little objective reporting through the entire course of history. Humans have biases, preconceptions and filters. History, itself, is the record written by the victors. w/r/t journalism, this is evidenced via word choices, areas of focus and emphasis, paths followed up or left alone. Read two reports of the same trial testimony. Read coverage of a basketball game by two journalism outfits you respect. They won't be identical. They'll vary widely on some points. Humans are subjective, journalists are humans, their reportage is on a spectrum of subjectivity. Believing otherwise could be harmful.