comment by ecib

a thoughtful web.

Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking. Login or Take a Tour!

comment by ecib

ecib · 4521 days ago · link · · parent · post: Old Media's Blind Spot: How New Media and Aggregators are Winning the War for Eyeballs.

Why is it not the point? HuffPo serves SEO first, and consumers second.

Maybe it is not the point in the sense that news outfits have not served consumers for some time now, be they digital or print. Isn't this just the logical continuance of 'for-profit' news? How may papers were closed by conglomerates to serve the shareholders and the bottom line? How many once solid papers tilted to embrace sensationalism headlines...sex, violence...it sells.

The Fourth Estate has been dumbing down for a while to sell more papers, -they've gotten in bed with governments they were supposed to be watching in order to keep getting fed more 'scoops' to sell more papers, they've killed stories to keep their corporate advertisers happy. This process is continually being further refined. It's an art and a science and they are getting better at it.

markup tips · 0

mk · 4521 days ago · link ·

All this is true. So I think the question becomes: at what point do we stop calling them the same thing?

I remember a couple years ago listening to a round-table discussion on NPR where a guest offhandedly said that Fox was not a news organization. Immediately, the host was like: "Whoa whoa whoa! We don't say things like that!" (It's almost like using the term liar to describe a politician. Third rail stuff.)

But, IMO it's close to the truth. By my definition, Fox, CNN and MSNBC are "newsertainment" organizations. Not news organizations. HuffPo is the same.

It just might be that for-profit news cannot be quality in this day and age. Personally, I think a quality for-profit news organization could work, but only if they cater to a smaller select audience. Unfortunately, if the organization is publicly traded, it won't take long until a CEO ruins it for more money.

+discuss+discuss

–

ecib · 4521 days ago · link ·

I think that for-profit news can be better in theory, but that depends on the owner and the value he/she sets for the organization. I think publicly traded companies have a limit set on the quality the can produce, which is lower in theory than non-profits and privately held for-profits.

+discuss+discuss

b_b · 4521 days ago · link ·

Well, the whole HufPo model would collapse if the Times and Economist and Globe et al suddenly failed (as would Hubski). New media are founded on old media, in that their model is based on rehashing, linking, discussing actual news stories. Maybe "new media" will one day employ "old reporters", but until that happens, they can only be second best, no matter how many clicks they get.

But let's be honest, its not like old media were good until the stock model ruined their business. Hearst wasn't exactly an idealist who wanted to enlighten the masses.

+discuss+discuss

–

thenewgreen · 4521 days ago · link ·

But let's be honest, its not like old media were good until the stock model ruined their business. Hearst wasn't exactly an idealist who wanted to enlighten the masses. the point I was about to make. Nothing has changed, perhaps the commercialization is more overt now. But I doubt it. I think perhaps, we're just better informed of it.

+discuss+discuss

–

mk · 4521 days ago · link ·

I disagree. The motives might not have changed, but the content and packaging has. CNN is not the same as the broadcast news that I used to watch with my parents at night.

+discuss+discuss

–

thenewgreen · 4521 days ago · link ·

If the motives haven't changed but the packaging has, this is because they've gotten better at figuring out what motivates the public. Therefore, it's the public that's the problem. They're just the dealers, giving the junkies what they want. The problem that you've addressed is that they are entertainment peddlers parading as serious journalism.

The worst, worst part is that our leadership in this country uses these media outlets as serious platforms to spread their message. They give credence to this garbage.

+discuss+discuss

–

mk · 4521 days ago · link ·

The problem that you've addressed is that they are entertainment peddlers parading as serious journalism.

Yes. That's basically the issue I take. They call themselves 'news organizations', when they aren't quite that.

+discuss+discuss

mk · 4521 days ago · link ·

(as would Hubski)

I'm currently writing a post that addresses this, actually.

+discuss+discuss

–

fr33lunch · 4521 days ago · link ·

On the subject of Hubski and news aggregators, I've been thinking more about how Hubski seems to fit a collaborative filtering model more than an aggregation model As I see it, the "filtering" is done through recommendations to a larger extent than autonomous coding. Thoughts?

+discuss+discuss

–

mk · 4521 days ago · link ·

I agree, and it's by design. Personally, I do not think that 'majority vote' systems support the best content. Or at least, they run counter to efforts to sustain a quality experience that doesn't align to majority tastes. IMO the ability to create (and sustain) a quality yet unpopular minority experience is key to a dynamic and healthy community, online and off.

What I am writing will touch on some of this. I'd like to hear what else you think about it though.

+discuss+discuss

–

fr33lunch · 4521 days ago · link ·

I agree. I was just talking with some folks about Hubski and the usual question of, what is that? came up. I find myself calling it a social and news aggregator, but when I describe it further it always sounds less like an aggregator and more like a collaborative. I realize that this is the intended model for Hubski, so I suppose I just didn't agree with the categorization I've seen go along with it.

+discuss+discuss

–

mk · 4519 days ago · link ·

I still have a difficult time describing Hubski. thenewgreen is much better at it. The language that is available seems to quickly give the impression of something that it isn't.

+discuss+discuss

–

thenewgreen · 4519 days ago · link ·

I spent an entire night talking with people at a TechCrunch gathering about Hubski and I left thinking to myself, "mk is so much better at describing Hubski". -We may be in trouble ;-)

Seriously, I would describe it in short and say, If you are truly interested in what Hubski is, you have to Hubski.