Remus West wrote:Journalism has been going downhill since it became a for profit exercise. As soon as that happened it became a fight to gain readers/audience/clicks and thus you get headlines that attract attention. This is not new.
When did it become a for profit exercise, and what was it before?
The News business has always been a for-profit venture. I was listening to interviews that David Axelrod did with Carl Bernstein and Chris Wallace the other day (Axelrod's podcast is outstanding by the way), and one of the topics they touched on was the climate of the newsroom in their formative years (all three of them started in print media). While it was always understood that the news was a business, there was always a wall between the business side and the news side.
I suspect that the "downfall" of journalism is tied to two important things: The reduction of the news cycle from 24 hours to instantaneous (which reduces the kind of editorial restraint that used to be exhibited to ensure that you got things "right" in addition to getting things "first"); and the crushing amount of "media" that amounts to little more than rank amateurs offering opinions on half-baked shit they found on the internet.
As the volume of noise increases, it becomes easier to confuse that with journalism. But what goes on at WaPo or the NYT is not what goes on at Buzzfeed or Gizmodo. They are different professions.
This isn't meant to imply that actual journalists are without flaw - but we shouldn't confuse the groups.
And in banks across the world
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range
While it was always understood that the news was a business, there was always a wall between the business side and the news side.
Superman and Spiderman both taught me that a long time ago.
the crushing amount of "media" that amounts to little more than rank amateurs offering opinions on half-baked shit they found on the internet.
I think it remains to be seen what news source will be the Facebook or Google or Wiki or Amazon or Uber or AirBnB but I think something will emerge and it will find a way to monetize crowdsourcing news. It also remains to be seen how good it will be at producing news that isn't simply the opining editorials of rank amateurs.
The winner is going to control a billions of dollars enterprise though, so I am sure medium and twitter and instagram are in a constant state of disruption trying to figure it out.
I, personally, would think sustained sponsorship of infrastructure with contracted on demand talent is the way to go but I'd also think that people much smarter than I'll ever be have attempted this model and fail as bad as glaring placed content in contemporary TV.
While it was always understood that the news was a business, there was always a wall between the business side and the news side.
Superman and Spiderman both taught me that a long time ago.
the crushing amount of "media" that amounts to little more than rank amateurs offering opinions on half-baked shit they found on the internet.
I think it remains to be seen what news source will be the Facebook or Google or Wiki or Amazon or Uber or AirBnB but I think something will emerge and it will find a way to monetize crowdsourcing news. It also remains to be seen how good it will be at producing news that isn't simply the opining editorials of rank amateurs.
The winner is going to control a billions of dollars enterprise though, so I am sure medium and twitter and instagram are in a constant state of disruption trying to figure it out.
I, personally, would think sustained sponsorship of infrastructure with contracted on demand talent is the way to go but I'd also think that people much smarter than I'll ever be have attempted this model and fail as bad as glaring placed content in contemporary TV.
As of last week, there are those that say Facebook wants to be the Facebook of news sources.
Lip service to the crucial function of the Fourth Estate is not enough to sustain it.
It’s not that Mark Zuckerberg set out to dismantle the news business when he founded Facebook 13 years ago. Yet news organizations are perhaps the biggest casualty of the world Zuckerberg built.
There’s reason to believe things are going to get worse.
A sprawling new manifesto by Zuckerberg, published to Facebook on Thursday, should set off new alarm bells for journalists, and heighten news organizations’ sense of urgency about how they—and their industry—can survive in a Facebook-dominated world.
Facebook’s existing threat to journalism is well established. It is, at its core, about the flow of the advertising dollars that news organizations once counted on. In this way, Facebook’s role is a continuation of what began in 1995, when Craigslist was founded. Its founder, Craig Newmark, didn’t actively aim to decimate newspapers, but Craigslist still eviscerated a crucial revenue stream for print when people stopped buying newspaper classifieds ads.
Craigslist was the first signal (and became the prototypical example) of a massive unbundling of news services online that would diminish the power and reach of the news, culturally, and make it more difficult to produce a profitable news product.
Zuckerberg’s memo outlines a plan for the next phase of this unbundling, and it represents an expansion of Facebook’s existing threat to the news industry.
Facebook already has the money. The company is absolutely dominating in the realm of digital advertising. It notched $8.8 billion in revenue last quarter—more than $7 billion of which came from mobile-ad sales. One analyst told The New York Times last year that 85 percent of all online advertising revenue is funneled to either Facebook or Google—leaving a paltry 15 percent for news organizations to fight over.
Now, Zuckerberg is making it clear that he wants Facebook to take over many of the actual functions—not just ad dollars—that traditional news organizations once had.
"What? What?What?" -- The 14th Doctor
It's not enough to be a good player... you also have to play well. -- Siegbert Tarrasch
What an awful idea. The crowd is least likely to produce objectivity.
And in banks across the world
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range
What an awful idea. The crowd is least likely to produce objectivity.
It will be the way. The evidence already points that way. The question for me is how do you gain "the people's" trust and maintain integrity to keep a sourced longevity? My guess is that you supply a series of Matt Drudges and rely on "the people" to eventually find integrity over clickbait and/or ideology. I think it's going to be a painful journey unless someone steps up to the plate. If I had a shitton of money and were retired, I might be that guy. It's going to be a billions of dollars industry to the victor like other billions of dollars industries capitalizing on the information age and monetizing information through alternate revenue streams.
LordMortis wrote:It will be the way. The evidence already points that way.
Then we're screwed.
And in banks across the world
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range
LordMortis wrote:It will be the way. The evidence already points that way.
Then we're screwed.
We might very well be. The current trajectory is looking pretty dim. I choose to believe we aren't. I choose to believe there is a way and it's yet to be exploited. Matt Drudge, Twitter, and Facebook may be what got us to where we are now but that doesn't mean it's not a bridge to something better. I think most people fall into the trappings of sensationalism and the need to be part of us and them but I don't think most people want to. So I think there is hope. All hope needs, is the best plan and the resources to implement it.
There are multiple factors at work, all of which predate the likes of Facebook.
Conventional journalism is expensive. It requires a pricy infrastructure of correspondents and editors. When news sources were few: newspapers and 3 major TV networks, consumers were concentrated enough to fund such an enterprise.
Fake news started with the tabloids. Fast news (with corners being cut) began with cable TV. Fast, fake news in slick pro format came via Fox News. They proved you don't need to be accurate, or even truthful. Thousands of internet news sources have come to discover they can flourish at relatively low cost if they ditch the expensive infrastructure needed for accurate journalism. People seem to want their executive summaries as things happen, and have shown a great willingness to excuse the lack of accurate details as long as the general gist of things satisfies their curiosity. This leads to less serious journalism happening, which accelerates the death spiral.
What an awful idea. The crowd is least likely to produce objectivity.
Apparently many/most people don't want objectivity...they want a "news" source that confirms their existing beliefs.
Which is why we're screwed.
And in banks across the world
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range
What an awful idea. The crowd is least likely to produce objectivity.
Apparently many/most people don't want objectivity...they want a "news" source that confirms their existing beliefs.
Which is why we're screwed.
Maybe. I can't say I'm excited to find out but I also like the idea of on demand news not filtered by gold blooded philosopher news kings. Can we find a way to crowdsource that weeds out that stupid, conspiracyists, and the ideologues? I hope so, though I'm skeptical, given the way the current state of disruption to traditional news and the current state of our nation (which, quite frankly is my primary concern).
I want to believe that the continued evolution of the flow information as central to our modern existence will be like discovering that a child learns best when you simply let them learn, that eventually small 't' truth is what we generally will want. That an honest relationship to reality is what we will aspire to.
I guess I've seen enough dystopia to blind myself with hope that generation post millennial is going to know what's up and change the paradigm.
Isn't what you want what OO provides? People bring information to your attention and then you get to judge it. It's probably not going to get any better than this.
stessier wrote:Isn't what you want what OO provides? People bring information to your attention and then you get to judge it. It's probably not going to get any better than this.
In many ways, yes. OO is a crowdsourced filter that largely works (for me). However, what OO provides relies on a concoction of media that is still dependent on dying model. I don't think we've approached the height of news disruption.
LordMortis wrote:I also like the idea of on demand news not filtered by gold blooded philosopher news kings.
I'd prefer to get the news filtered by those that understand how to properly investigate and source information to report a story based on actual facts.
What you are describing will amount to the internet fire-hosing information of varying degrees of quality into your face, relying on each of use to understand how to properly investigate and source information to build a story based on actual facts. That simply cannot work.
What you are asking for is akin to "I also like the idea of on demand engineering not filtered by those trained to engineer things". Like most jobs, "journalism" isn't something that just anyone can do, and those that are capable of being good at it need some combination of training and experience. The idea that we can all do it is as dumb as the idea that we can all be brain surgeons.
And in banks across the world
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range
RunningMn9 wrote:What you are asking for is akin to "I also like the idea of on demand engineering not filtered by those trained to engineer things".
I disagree.
People trained to engineer things can engineer things in a crowd sourced kind of way and build stuff out side the of the existing engineering and building things paradigm.
RunningMn9 wrote: Like most jobs, "journalism" isn't something that just anyone can do, and those that are capable of being good at it need some combination of training and experience. The idea that we can all do it is as dumb as the idea that we can all be brain surgeons.
I guess that depends on what you think "journalism" entails. If you include the part about making a story interesting and compelling, then I agree. But if you just mean picking a topic and researching it from all angles and reporting on the possible effect then yes, I think anyone can do it as the basic skills you need are persistence and logic.
RunningMn9 wrote: Like most jobs, "journalism" isn't something that just anyone can do, and those that are capable of being good at it need some combination of training and experience. The idea that we can all do it is as dumb as the idea that we can all be brain surgeons.
I guess that depends on what you think "journalism" entails. If you include the part about making a story interesting and compelling, then I agree. But if you just mean picking a topic and researching it from all angles and reporting on the possible effect then yes, I think anyone can do it as the basic skills you need are persistence and logic.
Even given your theory regarding what it entails I'd have to say that the majority of people with their 10 second attention spans and inability to show anything resembling logic demonstrate that they are not capable.
“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.” - H.L. Mencken
Rip wrote:This place really has turned into a horde of elitists.
Well, come along! I've got two spears,
And I'll poke your eyeballs out at your ears;
I've got besides two curling-stones,
And I'll crush you to bits, body and bones.
“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.” - H.L. Mencken
Rip wrote:This place really has turned into a horde of elitists.
Well, come along! I've got two spears,
And I'll poke your eyeballs out at your ears;
I've got besides two curling-stones,
And I'll crush you to bits, body and bones.
I disagree. Eichenwald's reporting is insightful because he has the info on the Intel process works. He has explained thst the Trump-Putin links have been through multiple levels of intel analysis before they would take it to the President, especially as a "high confidence" report.
Citizen-journalists often have zero clue about the bigger picture. Our local web paper DNAInfo muckrakes and misses connections to tell superficial stories all the time. They've interviewed my wife on local matters and not only misquoted her, but misconstrued the significance of the local police commander saying "My hands are tied, I don't have enough trained officers on duty to man the cars. So you're not getting your special bike route/bar patrols."
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Albert Einstein "I don't stand by anything." - Trump “Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” - John Stuart Mill, Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St Andrews, 2/1/1867 “It is the impractical things in this tumultuous hell-scape of a world that matter most. A book, a name, chicken soup. They help us remember that, even in our darkest hour, life is still to be savored.” - Poe, Altered Carbon
RunningMn9 wrote: Like most jobs, "journalism" isn't something that just anyone can do, and those that are capable of being good at it need some combination of training and experience. The idea that we can all do it is as dumb as the idea that we can all be brain surgeons.
I guess that depends on what you think "journalism" entails. If you include the part about making a story interesting and compelling, then I agree. But if you just mean picking a topic and researching it from all angles and reporting on the possible effect then yes, I think anyone can do it as the basic skills you need are persistence and logic.
All you need to do anything is persistence and logic. Engineering is just applying math to materials right?
LordMortis wrote:People trained to engineer things can engineer things
Right. That's what I said. The problem is what you are talking about RE: journalism with crowd-sourcing news isn't using journalists (engineers) anymore. And from my quick look at that link, that's open-sourcing, not crowd-sourcing.
Last edited by RunningMn9 on Fri Feb 24, 2017 3:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
And in banks across the world
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range
stessier wrote:I guess that depends on what you think "journalism" entails. If you include the part about making a story interesting and compelling, then I agree. But if you just mean picking a topic and researching it from all angles and reporting on the possible effect then yes, I think anyone can do it as the basic skills you need are persistence and logic.
Those aren't basic skills, and this country just demonstrated quite nicely that the crowd can't be counted on to bring them to bear.
I think that journalism entails gathering, assessing, creating, and presenting news and information (stolen from internet definition). The skills required to that aren't inherent in everyone. Any more than the skills required to be an engineer are inherent in everyone.
And in banks across the world
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range
RunningMn9 wrote: Like most jobs, "journalism" isn't something that just anyone can do, and those that are capable of being good at it need some combination of training and experience. The idea that we can all do it is as dumb as the idea that we can all be brain surgeons.
I guess that depends on what you think "journalism" entails. If you include the part about making a story interesting and compelling, then I agree. But if you just mean picking a topic and researching it from all angles and reporting on the possible effect then yes, I think anyone can do it as the basic skills you need are persistence and logic.
All you need to do anything is persistence and logic. Engineering is just applying math to materials right?
LordMortis wrote:People trained to engineer things can engineer things
Right. That's what I said. The problem is what you are talking about RE: journalism with crowd-sourcing news isn't using journalists (engineers) anymore. And from my quick look at that link, that's no open-sourcing, not crowd-sourcing.
Give it time for a model to settle in and hope and input for the best because it sure appears to me that this is the direction we're headed. Good, Bad, they're the guys with the guns.
I don't think (or would like to believe) we aren't at the endpoint for contemporary news reporting and consumption. I would like to believe that smart people with an eye on monetizing the service will provide a service where journalism they crowd source will be vetted for the benefit of the consumers and the deliverers.
Spicer decided to hold an off-camera “gaggle” with reporters inside his West Wing office instead of the traditional on-camera briefing in the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room.
Among the outlets not permitted to cover the gaggle were news organizations that President Trump has singled out for criticism, including CNN.
The New York Times, The Hill, Politico, BuzzFeed, the Daily Mail, BBC, the Los Angeles Times and the New York Daily News were among the other news organizations not permitted to attend.
Several right-leaning outlets were allowed into Spicer’s office, including Breitbart, the Washington Times and One America News Network.
A number of major news organizations were also let in to cover the gaggle. That group included ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, Reuters, Bloomberg and McClatchy.
BBC? Really?
When darkness veils the world, four Warriors of Light shall come.
Stupid. Real reporters already know there's blood in the water. Now the Trump administration shows it is afraid of coverage?
Careers will be made uncovering the truth.
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Albert Einstein "I don't stand by anything." - Trump “Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” - John Stuart Mill, Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St Andrews, 2/1/1867 “It is the impractical things in this tumultuous hell-scape of a world that matter most. A book, a name, chicken soup. They help us remember that, even in our darkest hour, life is still to be savored.” - Poe, Altered Carbon
CNN already posted an article hinting at this. All this is going to do is make the press that more determined to dig up the dirt.
And let's face it - an administration who is above board and has nothing to hide would have no reason to discredit the media and ban news outlets. Trump's only a month in and he's feeling the flames. At some point in the very near future, this is all going to blow up into the biggest Presidential scandal since Watergate. Possibly bigger.
The WSJ announced that they were unaware that other organizations had been blocked. They have protested this and have said that they would not participate in anything like this in the future. AP and Time refused to participate when they learned some orgs had been blocked (which is what the rest of them should have done - though as the WSJ, they may have not been aware of this).
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
YellowKing wrote:CNN already posted an article hinting at this. All this is going to do is make the press that more determined to dig up the dirt.
And let's face it - an administration who is above board and has nothing to hide would have no reason to discredit the media and ban news outlets. Trump's only a month in and he's feeling the flames. At some point in the very near future, this is all going to blow up into the biggest Presidential scandal since Watergate. Possibly bigger.
Watergate unfolded slowly as journalists followed the leads, one revelation at a time. Trump's Russia connections, OTOH, are one big steaming pile of scandal. Most of the pieces are already out there; it's just a matter of putting them in the right order to form a bulletproof narrative. His tax return will be the rosetta stone that brings it all into focus...and yes, it's going to come out.
I still don't think he'll fall until the first half of next year, but he's going to fall hard, and he'll do his best to take the country down with him.
Grifman wrote:The WSJ announced that they were unaware that other organizations had been blocked. They have protested this and have said that they would not participate in anything like this in the future. AP and Time refused to participate when they learned some orgs had been blocked (which is what the rest of them should have done - though as the WSJ, they may have not been aware of this).
We'll have to see if it continues but it will be a tough position. Stand tough with everyone who watch as unethical organizations like Breitbart get access and clicks over them.
hepcat wrote:I think it's always been a for-profit endeavor, but the extent and breadth of the monetization of journalism is, I feel, much more pronounced in a post internet world.
Actually in the "glory days" of TV journalism, the news department was considered a loss leader, supported by commercial programming and intended to add "class" and "prestige"
I spent 90% of the money I made on women, booze, and drugs. The other 10% I just pissed away.
Before the days of professional-grade, aspirationally objective journalism, newspapers were highly slanted and highly partisan in every way. Journalism was Fake News before it was real news. At least in spirit, Drudge and Breitbart came long before the New York Times and the BBC.
I think the WH favoring compliant outlets and freezing out critics won't get them far. Trump can't lock out reporters and call them elitists at the same time. That's not how drama works.
But the real idiocy here is the WH declaring war on the press and on the veteran intelligence community at the very same time. That's how you know Trump is running on pure reptile-brain rather than some grand plan.
hepcat wrote:I think it's always been a for-profit endeavor, but the extent and breadth of the monetization of journalism is, I feel, much more pronounced in a post internet world.
Actually in the "glory days" of TV journalism, the news department was considered a loss leader, supported by commercial programming and intended to add "class" and "prestige"
Holman wrote:Before the days of professional-grade, aspirationally objective journalism, newspapers were highly slanted and highly partisan in every way. Journalism was Fake News before it was real news. At least in spirit, Drudge and Breitbart came long before the New York Times and the BBC.
This.
The golden age of objective and hard hitting journalism was relatively short lived. And the entire time conservatives were screaming about liberal media bias, which led to scared outlets trying to walk the line like CNN. The one good thing from this Trump fiasco is that it seems like some outlets have doubled down on trying to get back to that hard hitting, objective journalism.
Holman wrote:Before the days of professional-grade, aspirationally objective journalism, newspapers were highly slanted and highly partisan in every way. Journalism was Fake News before it was real news. At least in spirit, Drudge and Breitbart came long before the New York Times and the BBC.
This.
The golden age of objective and hard hitting journalism was relatively short lived. And the entire time conservatives were screaming about liberal media bias, which led to scared outlets trying to walk the line like CNN. The one good thing from this Trump fiasco is that it seems like some outlets have doubled down on trying to get back to that hard hitting, objective journalism.
Good for them but I suspect it is more politics than any love of a free and hard hitting press. When the power shifts the other direction they will return to being lapdogs so quick your head will spin.
malchior wrote:. Stand tough with everyone who watch as unethical organizations like Breitbart get access and clicks over them.
I could be wrong, but I would think that the venn diagram of mainstream news readers like NYT or WSJ and those that read complete garbage like Breitbart have to be of limited overlap.
It's going to be a billions of dollars industry to the victor like other billions of dollars industries capitalizing on the information age and monetizing information through alternate revenue streams.
