3 ms·

> I remember being a kid, and thinking that CNN must have some really intelligent, mature writing, that I was simply too young to understand. Now, they post the

• jkoudys 12y ago
  I don't think so. When I go back and watch TV shows or read headlines from around when I was born, they weren't any better back then, I was simply too young to realize how ridiculous they all were. Case in point, the mass hysteria around daycare sexual abuse and satanic rituals: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMartin_preschool_trial http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMartin_preschool_trial
  • lstyls 12y ago
    I 100% agree that there has always been sensationalism in journalism - that's nothing new. But back then the volume of print media was limited by physical factors - it was expensive to get an article in print. The new economics of media has fundamentally changed the business models. There was no print equivalent of Buzzfeed for example. My point is that the barrier to entry for shoddy journalism is so low that articles like this are flooding the medium more than ever.
  • afarrell 12y ago
    You would probably find http://www.retroreport.org/ http://www.retroreport.org/ interesting
• skadamat 12y ago
  > Ironically, we can attribute the flourishing of trash articles like these to the new media landscape that has arrived due to the emergence of new technologies... While I generally agree, it's up to us as a society to determine how new technologies are used. There's a difference between doing nuclear research and the research itself being the reason for nuclear weapons. People were responsible for the weapons / using technology in that way, but it is a fine line!
• pm24601 12y ago
  So why do you think there is nothing to this article?