Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by koheripbal | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

koheripbal

We exactly need to reward original investigative journalism like this with subscriptions.

So few "journalists" do anything more than repeat twitter trends these days.

View on HN

The journalists are just doing what their employer asks them too.

Their employer is trying to sell papers/clicks.

No enough people are willing to pony up for good journalism like the parent comment -- I'm generalizing but most people don't even like to read long form journalism anymore.

If we want to know why journalism sucks we need to look in the mirror.

“When you’re young, you look at television and think, There’s a conspiracy. The networks have conspired to dumb us down. But when you get a little older, you realize that’s not true. The networks are in business to give people exactly what they want. That’s a far more depressing thought. Conspiracy is optimistic! You can shoot the bastards! We can have a revolution! But the networks are really in business to give people what they want. It’s the truth.”

Steve Jobs

It's far more of an ongoing loop rather than a one-way conversation.

Jobs was right to say it's not part of some grand conspiracy, but if you look more closely, you see that people ("consumers") and media are both produced by the same ideological and economic forces that serve each other. It's not some sinister plot, it's just how culture has developed to this point.

The media does give people what they want, but where do people get ideas of what they want? It's a dialectic, not a one-way causative relationship.

If it's a two-way conversation, I think it's fairly lopsided. The reason is: competition. When consumers only have one choice or a few, sure, that company can exercise a lot of power in dictating what people read, and thereby influence what they want (by limiting what's possible for them to experience and be aware of).

However, there are countless competing sources of entertainment and news online. If any particular organization gets away from giving consumers what they want, and instead becomes overly wrapped up in trying to tell consumers what they should want, they'll get eaten by the competition.

The result is a web in which billions of people flock to whatever "channel" has the message that resonates best. Meanwhile the people running these organizations are doing their best to figure out what will resonate, so they can survive and thrive. If a story gets clicks and shares, repeat. If it doesn't, stop writing things like that. Survival of the fittest.

There are some mitigating factors ofc. For example, a lot of smaller media orgs will simply copy what the bigger ones are doing, which gives the bigger ones a lot of influence. Also, there's momentum. Once you have a loyal audience, there's friction for them to switch to reading a different source, so you get more leeway.

But all things told, I think reader demand drives most of the content we see.

An ironic quote, considering that Steve Jobs literally conspired with Google and other SV companies to illegally depress wages for tech employees--to the tune of hundreds of millions in lost wages.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L...

When I look in the mirror, I don't see someone wanting clearly biased, opinionated, decontextualized, or downright unfacts, trying to be spun as news, with zero retractions or apologies when it's called out. Those are the reasons journalism sucks, and it has nothing to do with what I see in my mirror.

Are you representative of the country at large, though?

I think the parent comment was using we to refer to the collective.

It’s a collective mirror and what we believe we ‘want’ is less important than our revealed preference.

'When you look in the mirror' you see the 'story you tell' about yourself.

If you want to know what you really like - check your actual news browsing habits.

If you did that you might note you might click a lot of bait, and read things that micro-trigger you, and the local or boring news just doesn't get the attention.

Obviously, some more than others.

But certainly, the death of 'local news' at the very least is due to the fact we don't care about local stuff. Not only this, but we are also materially less engaged at the local level than at any time in history.

There was a writer on Sam Harris' podcast (I think Matt Taibbi in this episode[1]) who said he was having a really hard time getting interest in any article that wasn't about Trump. Interest virtually disappeared in anything else. The 24/7 reality TV show is what gets attention and it's easy to produce.

So depressing.

1. https://samharris.org/podcasts/140-burning-fourth-estate/

Reply on news.ycombinator.com