4 ms·
Some guy's blog and Wikipedia have been more accurate and interesting than news outlets for years now. Most news outlets are just mills for regurgitating press
by tumult 17y ago
Some guy's blog and Wikipedia have been more accurate and interesting than news outlets for years now.
Most news outlets are just mills for regurgitating press releases wired over AP and Reuters. There's little actual reporting going on. It's much cheaper to run a paper this way -- fewer people working on the content itself allows you to print lots of paper with ads on it. Much of it is automated.
It's not like this is either some conspiracy or something unique to news. It's cheaper to run a restaurant by getting more of your stuff from Sysco. It's cheaper to build car lineups by basing more of them off of the same model and rebranding them. It's cheaper to print papers with ad space on them by automating the news portions as much as possible.
There's little reporting or fact checking going on. Only a few of the better papers aren't just regurgitation machines at this point, and even then, you're less likely to find hard-line reporting than years ago.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- gamble 17y agoThis is why I feel so little sympathy for the newspaper industry's problems. If every paper started charging for access to their website tomorrow, the only ones worth bothering with would be AP/Reuters, NYT, WaPo, the Economist, and WSJ. A handful of papers produce 90% of the worthwhile, original content. The hundreds of other papers published today add little to nothing of their own.
- vetinari 17y agoWell, I'm starting to lose respect for The Economist. There were few articles from area that I'm involved in and the articles were just one sides' arguments, without contacting the other side. The article author just met with someone in nice restaurant, listened to them and then run with the info. There was no effort for digging deeper, it is cheaper after all and fills pages too.