4 ms·

He rightly criticizes newspapers for all thinking their only problem is getting their impeccable journalism to readers... but then talks only about ways of lett

He rightly criticizes newspapers for all thinking their only problem is getting their impeccable journalism to readers... but then talks only about ways of letting readers organize and select what they want to read--how is that different? If content is the problem, then ease of access is secondary.

krakensden 12y ago
I can imagine getting scared off by trying to address the quality issue- the Grey Lady is an institution, a lot of journalists aspire to work there, and journalism has been done in the One True Way for so long it's hard to imagine alternatives. I remember reading a science article in Ars for the first time, and thinking "wow, this doesn't suck. I thought all articles about science sucked." There was even a link to the paper at the bottom! Ryan Paul wrote articles about programming and open source, and they were nuanced, coherent, and made sense. He could even program! Still, this is all nerd shit, right? Real people don't care. Vox seems to be addressing this in other fields- you read an article about a speech (http://www.vox.com/2014/6/15/5812752/read-obama-s-full-speech-ripping-into-climate-deniers http://www.vox.com/2014/6/15/5812752/read-obama-s-full-speec... chosen by fair dice roll), the same article every other two-bit news outlet hammered together in 45 minutes. Then you go down to the bottom of the page, and you've got a bunch of explanations of every related thing. What, why, more details, links to rebuttals. Still, politics is just nerd shit for innumerate white people. Real people don't care, right? Grantland writes sports articles with heat maps, diagrams, tactical explanations, as well as the usual platitudes about desire, and perfunctory examinations of the politics of sport. Quality is an issue, and it's certainly becoming more pressing. As to whether or not people who are not insiders are interested in the opinions of subject matter experts over professional summarizers, we'll see. Not everyone wants to know more about everything, but everyone wants to know more about something sometimes.

krakensden 12y ago

I can imagine getting scared off by trying to address the quality issue- the Grey Lady is an institution, a lot of journalists aspire to work there, and journalism has been done in the One True Way for so long it's hard to imagine alternatives. I remember reading a science article in Ars for the first time, and thinking "wow, this doesn't suck. I thought all articles about science sucked." There was even a link to the paper at the bottom! Ryan Paul wrote articles about programming and open source, and they were nuanced, coherent, and made sense. He could even program! Still, this is all nerd shit, right? Real people don't care. Vox seems to be addressing this in other fields- you read an article about a speech (http://www.vox.com/2014/6/15/5812752/read-obama-s-full-speech-ripping-into-climate-deniers http://www.vox.com/2014/6/15/5812752/read-obama-s-full-speec... chosen by fair dice roll), the same article every other two-bit news outlet hammered together in 45 minutes. Then you go down to the bottom of the page, and you've got a bunch of explanations of every related thing. What, why, more details, links to rebuttals. Still, politics is just nerd shit for innumerate white people. Real people don't care, right? Grantland writes sports articles with heat maps, diagrams, tactical explanations, as well as the usual platitudes about desire, and perfunctory examinations of the politics of sport. Quality is an issue, and it's certainly becoming more pressing. As to whether or not people who are not insiders are interested in the opinions of subject matter experts over professional summarizers, we'll see. Not everyone wants to know more about everything, but everyone wants to know more about something sometimes.