Hacker News Reader

Comment by strangattractor | Hacker News Reader

Old enough to remember Cronkite or MacNeil Lehrer - there was a time with more facts less ideology. Ever since the news became a profit center it just isn't as useful. One literally has to follow double digit numbers of outlets to get a reasonable picture of reality. It is simply too costly. The News rooms have become their own undoing.

View on HN

Old school news anchors were NOT neutral. The stories they chose and the language they used shaped perceptions just as much as now, only they had precious little competition back then. They so completely shaped the population's perception of that era that retroactive analyses using better evidence to reach new conclusions about the events of that time are reflexively rejected by most people, demonstrating incuriosity and close-mindedness out of loyalty to established narratives. That is ideology.

I am not making a "those were the good ole days" argument - the News "business" changed in a fundamental way. The objective became to "make money" as opposed to "deliver news". The profit motive changes everything - taking that thinking to a logical conclusion you end up with 2 minute videos that are chosen specifically to punch your buttons so you will keep watching. The way in which people consume their news now is simply chaos.

https://niemanreports.org/articles/the-transformation-of-net...

In the past, a lot of news outlets were prestige buys by the super wealthy. They would buy a news outlet so they could make sure that they have a place that will say everything they want to hear being said. This often allowed for some objectivity over subjects that the magnate didn't care about, but it put very strict limits on the ones that the magnate did.

Plus, the news has always been majority sponsored by publicity, and news rooms have always been careful to print or broadcast narratives that sit well with the people who give them the money. Few things have really changed in these dynamics.

Forgive my cynicism, but I do not believe you, and I do not believe the linked article. Profit is not the only incentive to deceive. Power, legacy, and prestige (which the article claims was the ultimate goal) are all incentives to deceive, mislead, or otherwise engage in narrative craft.

Cynicism forgiven. I would point out that most of the powerful are also very, very rich. Might be difficult to separate the two.

The objective was always "make money" - it never changed. What changed was the means of making money - originally journalism, now advocacy and activism.

The New York Times, in particular, clearly now is an advocacy organization instead of a news organization.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/slouching-toward-post-j...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com