4 ms·

Ok, so a lot of people are nit-picking this essay by attacking the weaker points (whether the gate-keeper role is one we want centralized, whether news media wa

by habitue 11y ago

Ok, so a lot of people are nit-picking this essay by attacking the weaker points (whether the gate-keeper role is one we want centralized, whether news media was truly unbiased etc). The much stronger central point that needs to be answered is "Where will in-depth investigative journalism get funding to continue?" Yes, in-depth investigative journalism is not all that traditional media does/did. Yes, some of what investigative journalism does can be taken over by better data-mining and cheaper methods these days. But there remains, after all that, a certain amount that cannot be done by bloggers and data mining. That's the central question posed by this essay that needs answering, and it's obvious there isn't a good answer right now. That doesn't mean saving traditional media is the best way to solve this problem, but it does mean this aspect of traditional media needs a viable replacement we don't have yet.

x5n1 11y ago
> "Where will in-depth investigative journalism get funding to continue?" From people like Snowden and Greenwald who are willing to sacrifice their lives to get the truth out. As has always been the case. Media for the most part has been a mechanism for distributing propaganda. That business losing its profitability does not concern me one bit. As for people who want to be reporters losing jobs and not having that as a career option, well this is a systemic problem with the new economy, and that is a much deeper problem than a business model not working any more because of tech.
- afarrell 11y ago
  How many such people are there and how wealthy are they?
- habitue 11y ago
  I'm talking less about whether anyone will do it and more about whether there a system in place to encourage enough people to do it
- untog 11y ago
  Snowden and Greenwald aren't independently funded, though, so you're not answering the question. Greenwald is bankrolled by a generous billionaire, for now. Relying on such generosity does not seem wise. Would he be as effective if he had to balance a full time job?
InclinedPlane 11y ago
The premise that the traditional media has been doing a competent job with in-depth investigative journalism is a false one. They have not been. More so, the subset of the media that has been doing that work, such as it is, is still very much smaller than the current remaining size of traditional media. Additionally, organizations that do a good job on such things are overall the least under threat of not existing in the near future. Secondarily, the idea that there is some sort of strong divide between "bloggers" and "journalists" is a fantasy. A journalist is someone who does journalism, period. It doesn't require a degree or special training, it requires doing it well. And there are many folks who have been doing it well despite being outside the realm of traditional journalism. It's insulting to call them "bloggers" or "amateurs" or whatever other nickname you can throw at them. To the degree that they do professional quality journalism, they are journalists. Meanwhile, we labor under this idea that the established news media has been a particularly good example of journalistic quality. Largely this is because there weren't other examples to compare against. The reality is that the actual quantity of legitimate reporting, investigation, and worthwhile analysis in a newspaper or in a TV news broadcast has generally been incredibly tiny. A slim collection of pages, a handful of minutes. But we've gotten used to the patterns, the production values, the mythos, the sense of gravitas. The reality is that most of it is pablum and the rest is thin gruel. CNN? An alien from another planet who just landed on Earth would look at the media and tell you to your face that there is a hair's breadth difference between CNN and buzzfeed, and not always necessarily in the favor of CNN. Most of the rest of the media is in the same shape, with only the tiniest handful of exclusions. As you allude, preserving the traditional media isn't the right way to solve the problem, because they weren't solving it. Indeed, in some cases (FOX News, etc.) they have a tendency to make their viewers less informed and more ignorant. We shouldn't be asking ourselves how to get back to the glory days of the traditional media, that's largely a fantasy. We should be asking ourselves how people become informed in the digital age, and that's a much vaster topic than just the "news".
- habitue 11y ago
  My intent wasn't to belittle bloggers, but the point remains that bloggers generally have less funding to do long term in-depth reporting. Unless they're independently funded, advertising revenue on a blog can't support it. Advertising revenue on a big newspaper's site like the NYT probably can't afford it either. The Bob Woodwards of the world don't come out of a vacuum. They're part of a larger system in which digging into a problem takes time, and many don't succeed. That means you need a lot of people trying to do it. That means you need some system that is paying for and encouraging people to do this, you can't rely on a couple of independently funded bloggers to carry the load for everyone. Given your "most of it pablum" talk above, I can guess you don't know anyone who works in a good newspaper or a local television station's investigative unit. I agree 24 hour news networks are full of filler. Local news and the better newspaper's are a better representation of what "traditional journalism" looks like. They just have vastly reduced resources. But you get the people we're talking about here who dig into stories and find out what's going on. And when you talk to them, you hear about journalistic integrity. Yes really! I know it's fun to be cynical on HN, but journalistic integrity is a real thing that is alive and well but its funding is dwindling.

by habitue 11y ago

x5n1 11y ago

> "Where will in-depth investigative journalism get funding to continue?" From people like Snowden and Greenwald who are willing to sacrifice their lives to get the truth out. As has always been the case. Media for the most part has been a mechanism for distributing propaganda. That business losing its profitability does not concern me one bit. As for people who want to be reporters losing jobs and not having that as a career option, well this is a systemic problem with the new economy, and that is a much deeper problem than a business model not working any more because of tech.

afarrell 11y ago
How many such people are there and how wealthy are they?
habitue 11y ago
I'm talking less about whether anyone will do it and more about whether there a system in place to encourage enough people to do it
untog 11y ago
Snowden and Greenwald aren't independently funded, though, so you're not answering the question. Greenwald is bankrolled by a generous billionaire, for now. Relying on such generosity does not seem wise. Would he be as effective if he had to balance a full time job?

InclinedPlane 11y ago

The premise that the traditional media has been doing a competent job with in-depth investigative journalism is a false one. They have not been. More so, the subset of the media that has been doing that work, such as it is, is still very much smaller than the current remaining size of traditional media. Additionally, organizations that do a good job on such things are overall the least under threat of not existing in the near future. Secondarily, the idea that there is some sort of strong divide between "bloggers" and "journalists" is a fantasy. A journalist is someone who does journalism, period. It doesn't require a degree or special training, it requires doing it well. And there are many folks who have been doing it well despite being outside the realm of traditional journalism. It's insulting to call them "bloggers" or "amateurs" or whatever other nickname you can throw at them. To the degree that they do professional quality journalism, they are journalists. Meanwhile, we labor under this idea that the established news media has been a particularly good example of journalistic quality. Largely this is because there weren't other examples to compare against. The reality is that the actual quantity of legitimate reporting, investigation, and worthwhile analysis in a newspaper or in a TV news broadcast has generally been incredibly tiny. A slim collection of pages, a handful of minutes. But we've gotten used to the patterns, the production values, the mythos, the sense of gravitas. The reality is that most of it is pablum and the rest is thin gruel. CNN? An alien from another planet who just landed on Earth would look at the media and tell you to your face that there is a hair's breadth difference between CNN and buzzfeed, and not always necessarily in the favor of CNN. Most of the rest of the media is in the same shape, with only the tiniest handful of exclusions. As you allude, preserving the traditional media isn't the right way to solve the problem, because they weren't solving it. Indeed, in some cases (FOX News, etc.) they have a tendency to make their viewers less informed and more ignorant. We shouldn't be asking ourselves how to get back to the glory days of the traditional media, that's largely a fantasy. We should be asking ourselves how people become informed in the digital age, and that's a much vaster topic than just the "news".

habitue 11y ago
My intent wasn't to belittle bloggers, but the point remains that bloggers generally have less funding to do long term in-depth reporting. Unless they're independently funded, advertising revenue on a blog can't support it. Advertising revenue on a big newspaper's site like the NYT probably can't afford it either. The Bob Woodwards of the world don't come out of a vacuum. They're part of a larger system in which digging into a problem takes time, and many don't succeed. That means you need a lot of people trying to do it. That means you need some system that is paying for and encouraging people to do this, you can't rely on a couple of independently funded bloggers to carry the load for everyone. Given your "most of it pablum" talk above, I can guess you don't know anyone who works in a good newspaper or a local television station's investigative unit. I agree 24 hour news networks are full of filler. Local news and the better newspaper's are a better representation of what "traditional journalism" looks like. They just have vastly reduced resources. But you get the people we're talking about here who dig into stories and find out what's going on. And when you talk to them, you hear about journalistic integrity. Yes really! I know it's fun to be cynical on HN, but journalistic integrity is a real thing that is alive and well but its funding is dwindling.