Is journalism fucked?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Is journalism fucked?

Toplowtech: Aug 31, 2004

FactsAreUseless posted:

Given the following:

1. There are way fewer jobs in journalism in the U.S. than there used to be, and those jobs pay worse.
2. Jobs manipulating the news pay better, offer better benefits, and are steadier than jobs reporting the news.
3. There are way more jobs doing 2 than 1, with demand growing for 2 and shrinking for 1

And with 1-3 caused by:

4. Increasingly people choose their reporting not based on perceived accuracy, but on ideological reinforcement.
5. The era of on-demand information makes it possible to choose never to be exposed to ideas or facts you dislike.
6. As a result of 3 and 4, many people take distrust of media - as in the full apparatus of reporting and the standards of journalism - as a matter of personal identity and ideology.

Is journalism - not just as an industry but as an idea - just hosed? What are the solutions? Are these premises even valid?

Now guess what will happen to their new online model when the current tech bubble explode.

# ¿ Aug 20, 2016 10:44

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 27, 2024 18:14

Toplowtech: Aug 31, 2004

Well "it's more any year now", but bubbles always explode and even startup investors know we are in the last part of the boom cycle if you notice the things the current venture capital ask the startups to fulfill those days. All while shouting "THERE IS NO BUBBLE". It's pretty funny.

# ¿ Aug 21, 2016 06:12

Toplowtech: Aug 31, 2004

Crabtree posted:

Has Journalism ever not been hosed? There always seems to be traces or outright currents of yellow journalism, personal/national bias and following political narrative the more you dig into an era of news.

Yes Journalim always have been kinda imperfect, people tend to think journalists do a decent job covering subjects until they treat a subject they kinda are expert in or an event they personally witnessed. Then the opinion on their capacity is slightly lower. But at least they honestly tried, which is less and less often the case those days. Still it's 100 times better than emotion centric Social Medias as main information source because rumormongering campaign by marketing people and fourth rate activists in need of celebrity are just going to keep us misinformed as gently caress, at soviet levels. But now i can read ex-gawker journos basically typing the modern equivalent of "I AM NOT A CROOK" on twitter to defend their lost honor. Once again convincing no one. loving insane and depressing.

Toplowtech fucked around with this message at 07:16 on Aug 22, 2016

# ¿ Aug 22, 2016 07:14

Toplowtech: Aug 31, 2004

Main Paineframe posted:

Well, how was journalism paid for before the internet? In the case of print, it was paid for by buying individual newspapers or buying a subscription (effectively a paywall), and basic TV news is paid for by advertising.

Basic advertising and classified ads were big big money makers when the printed press was the only market. So i guess drat you craig list too :argh:

# ¿ Aug 22, 2016 17:00

Toplowtech: Aug 31, 2004

^^^^ the ads companies hosed up big in the mid 2000s. Who would have guessed having ads starting at full volume like i am watching tv every time i go to an online newspaper main page would encourage people to get an adblocker?

Venmoch posted:

Well, not ALL UK Media

Although it is a sorry state of affairs when a satirical magazine is also one of the best sources of journalism in the UK....

It's basically the same in France with the Canard Enchain�. They also pretty much refuse to go online which is probably why they kept their sell numbers too.

Toplowtech fucked around with this message at 21:32 on Aug 25, 2016

# ¿ Aug 25, 2016 21:28

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Is journalism fucked?

FactsAreUseless posted:

tsa posted:

Crabtree posted:

Main Paineframe posted:

Venmoch posted: