(giant image) 2 sentences talking about some dude I've never heard of.
close
Huh. I wonder. I mean, obviously it wasn't the only nail in the coffin and they need money but I mostly see nytimes, Wired, BI, etc links and look for an archive link or just move on.
I'd value it more but half of the time they don't even do any actual reporting. It's just rewriting the same crap 5 other papers wrote from a 100 character release from the AP.
Yeah, I value quality, honest reporting. The problem is most of the time they all are in the same race to the bottom. I saw a video on youtube the other day from "Forbes Breaking News" titled "Biden's dog bit secret service agents on 24 different occasions".. WOW Forbes that's definitely breaking news! It's really important that we watch that RIGHT THIS MOMENT isn't it? Really important info there.
These "journalists" and their papers can whine all they want. The reality is they are out of touch and toxic. Yeah, you lost to comment sections because people can actually just read through them.
You also lost because half of the time when I see a tiktok or video on twitter about an event, it's from the source. Someone, on the scene, actually looking at what's happening. Then the bigs swarm on that person's DMs "CAN WE WRITE AN ARTICLE?!"
And as far as investigative journalism goes, youtube is full of people doing it 100x better than most of the crap I see these days in big orgs. Do I want to watch the 25min rundown of the whole situation from the perspective of some dude who spent the last 3 months researching with his team? Or do I want to read a 3000 word article that bloviates about irrelevant things while occasionally repeating the same factoid they based the whole piece on?
I'm just one person with a pretty cynical view of most things but my view is that news orgs lost because they dug their own graves. Because they continued to be out of touch and manipulative and wrong in so many cases that I stopped caring about whatever clickbait garbage they were trying to serve me.
I mean sentence 3 says who the guy is. You're not supposed to recognize his name.
And BI is recycled garbage but NYT breaks stories left and right. The cycle is such that anyone who breaks a story will get their story rehashed by everyone else including clickbait artists. But realistically the old guard of NYT, AP, NPR, WaPo and the like are actually uncovering the big stories and doing the legwork of just listening to all the players. Them plus the galaxy of niche players and scrappy independent journos who score occasional scoops.
click
(giant image) 2 sentences talking about some dude I've never heard of.
close
Huh. I wonder. I mean, obviously it wasn't the only nail in the coffin and they need money but I mostly see nytimes, Wired, BI, etc links and look for an archive link or just move on.
I'd value it more but half of the time they don't even do any actual reporting. It's just rewriting the same crap 5 other papers wrote from a 100 character release from the AP.
Yeah, I value quality, honest reporting. The problem is most of the time they all are in the same race to the bottom. I saw a video on youtube the other day from "Forbes Breaking News" titled "Biden's dog bit secret service agents on 24 different occasions".. WOW Forbes that's definitely breaking news! It's really important that we watch that RIGHT THIS MOMENT isn't it? Really important info there.
These "journalists" and their papers can whine all they want. The reality is they are out of touch and toxic. Yeah, you lost to comment sections because people can actually just read through them.
You also lost because half of the time when I see a tiktok or video on twitter about an event, it's from the source. Someone, on the scene, actually looking at what's happening. Then the bigs swarm on that person's DMs "CAN WE WRITE AN ARTICLE?!"
And as far as investigative journalism goes, youtube is full of people doing it 100x better than most of the crap I see these days in big orgs. Do I want to watch the 25min rundown of the whole situation from the perspective of some dude who spent the last 3 months researching with his team? Or do I want to read a 3000 word article that bloviates about irrelevant things while occasionally repeating the same factoid they based the whole piece on?
I'm just one person with a pretty cynical view of most things but my view is that news orgs lost because they dug their own graves. Because they continued to be out of touch and manipulative and wrong in so many cases that I stopped caring about whatever clickbait garbage they were trying to serve me.
reply