11 comments

• 

  Daniel Gibbons

  1 year ago

  The consensus seems to be that the proliferation of sources in the end produces balance and accuracy, but I think you also have to look at motivation. At its crudest level it's just about chasing page views, and while you could argue that over time churning out rumour and innuendo will lead to a decline in readership, in the near term it works. Over the longer term the complete absence of barriers to entry to publishing most likely means it will keep being about cranking out sensationalized quantity.
  
  For me it's not really about the web being "to blame" (the web doesn't trivialize, people do...), but I just don't buy the idea that the final destination is some democratic idyll of accurate, decentralized news.
  reply
• 

  mathewi

  1 year ago

  I'm not sure that the proliferation of sources produces perfect
  balance and accuracy, but I think it helps. Let's face it --
  newspapers and other media have always chased the equivalent of page
  views (or advertisers, which amounts to the same thing). How is the
  Web any different? I don't think it is -- it's just faster.
  reply
• 

  Daniel Gibbons

  1 year ago

  I think it's completely different. Sure you could point to the British tabloids, etc., or the general goal of selling more papers, but traditional media outlets created much more distance between the journalists writing the story and the pageviews or their equivalent. And the journalists' reputation and credibility was much more to do with intelligent reporting and discovering real stories that weren't necessarily "popular" stories.
  
  Plus I think it diminishes the significance of "faster" to say "it's just faster" -- the ability to publish and distribute instantly completely changes the game.
  
  PS: Not sure what it is with disqus, but I have my profile set up to display my real name and it's always my screen name that shows up.
  reply
• 

  mathewi

  1 year ago

  I'm not sure it's completely different -- it's true that traditional
  media outlets do insulate the journalist from the "page view" or its
  equivalent, but the connection between stories that get attention and
  the success of a particular writer or reporter is still there -- it
  may not be as visible to the outside world, but it still operates.
  
  In some cases, having more distance between those two things could be
  a negative rather than a positive -- and making that relationship more
  transparent could be seen as a good thing. I'm not saying it is, I'm
  just saying it could be. And I'm not downplaying the fact that being
  faster changes things -- it definitely does. But it's a difference of
  degree, not a difference in kind.
  
  Not sure about the Disqus thing, I'm afraid.
  reply
• 

  dahowlett

  1 year ago

  I can't agree with this. At the rate that 'news' is being manufactured from little more than unsubstantiated rumor, it won't be long before people start doing that - quite literally. PR's are not stupid and they'll see this 'trend' as something to milk. At that point, everyone loses because then no-one knows what to believe. TC has a lot to answer for IMO. The good 'news' (no pun intended) is that outside the bubble, no-one cares.
  reply
• 

  mathewi

  1 year ago

  Can't agree with what, Dennis? My point is that the manufacturing of
  "news" has always gone on, for a variety of reasons, and likely will
  continue -- the Web may be amplifying that effect, or extending it,
  but other than that it's not much different from what happens in
  "traditional" media. Either you believe that people will gravitate
  towards more accurate or trustworthy sources, or you don't. There are
  plenty of examples of both to choose from.
  reply
• 

  dschatsky

  1 year ago

  So, maybe journalistic objectivity is an illusion. And maybe traditional journalism gets (or got) more credit for accuracy than it was due. Then maybe Internet-age news-as-a-process is a technology-enabled adaptation to that reality. And maybe produces more reliable news stories over time through successive refinement and the embrace of the dynamic of socially constructed truth.
  
  But there are limits on how much time people can spend with media--or "participate" in the "news process." The proliferation of digital information sources may well -raise- the value of product-oriented (old media) news vs. process-oriented (new media) news. If old media abondons lowers its product standards in pursuit of the process ethos, any news organization that preserves old fashioned standards may be a lifeline to the average reader, at sea in an ocean of partial information, who wants to know, with reasonable accuracy and reliability, what happened and what it means.
  reply
• 

  mathewi

  1 year ago

  I'm not saying that there's no value in objectivity (or at the very
  least, fairness), or that there isn't still a place for traditional
  media with "old-fashioned" standards -- if anything, I share your
  feeling that these things may become more valuable rather than less.
  But I'm not sure the traditional media are the only ones that are
  capable of supplying those things -- I guess maybe that's part of my
  point. Obviously accuracy and reliability and trust still matter, and
  perhaps matter even more now.
  reply
• 

  Tim Burden

  1 year ago

  I agree. This presents an opportunity for MSM. It is probably more important than ever for a news organization to maintain its credibility and reliability. How else will readers sort through the morass of comment and opinion that forms around a story? At some point in the "process", someone with an authoritative voice has to summarize, distill and contextualize the event.
  
  Even so, I give poor marks to any news site that doesn't allow readers to comment on stories. Comments help other readers get a sense of what people are thinking about an issue, and spark thought and debate about what has happened. But I also question the motives of any outlet that gives priority to speed and "me too" and doesn't check the facts.
  reply
• 

  Nate Westheimer

  1 year ago

  Matthew, I'm quite sympathetic to the pressures of modern journalism. But there's a difference between those who try to get it right and those who try to get it first. Those who get it right will win the long-run... I can prove it (and will in an up coming blog post). Anyway, I appreciate your thoughts on the matter -- and again, I'm sympathetic to these pressures, but I don't find any room for excuses for plain-old bad reporting, such as Riley's, in that sympathy.
  reply
• 

  mathewi

  1 year ago

  fair enough, Nate.
  reply