Re:Cutting Back Sugar Improves Obese Children's Health in Ju...
by kragen on Tuesday October 27, 2015 @03:45PM
(#10460586)
> Now I don't want it to sound dismissive or personal in any way, but tell me - if say, few of great software devs now drop everything they do and come to NYT to help, sit down for months and develop the most awesome software package the world of press has ever seen, will it actually solve the quality issues articles have?
This actually happened and that's how we got d3.js. It didn't fix journalism though.
Re:Cutting Back Sugar Improves Obese Children's Health in Ju...
by TeMPOraL on Tuesday October 27, 2015 @04:02PM
(#10460697)
Oh, didn't know the origin story; I only thought they just like it over there. D3 is absolutely awesome!
Re:Cutting Back Sugar Improves Obese Children's Health in Ju...
by Dotnaught on Tuesday October 27, 2015 @06:13PM
(#10461549)
>Will it make journalism honest and trustworthy instead of lies and clickbait bullshit?
You get what you pay for, which online tends toward nothing.
Re:Cutting Back Sugar Improves Obese Children's Health in Ju...
by kragen on Tuesday October 27, 2015 @10:33PM
(#10462573)
It turns out that paying people to talk to you, although it can work, tends to get them to tell you what you want to hear. Often, this is "lies and clickbait bullshit." (Think of a stereotypical Soviet government report.) Markets work very well for lots of things, but they can't establish honesty and trustworthiness. Instead, they need honesty and trustworthiness to function.
Still, it's better than them getting paid to tell you what someone else wants you to hear.
Re:Cutting Back Sugar Improves Obese Children's Health in Ju...
by specialist on Tuesday October 27, 2015 @06:59PM
(#10461793)
I don't recall ever having a problem with any actual reporting.
My objection is with the editorials. I've all but stopped reading "the news" (NYT, WSJ, Economist, my local paper, etc) as a result.
Now I don't want it to sound dismissive or personal in any way, but tell me - if say, few of great software devs now drop everything they do and come to NYT to help, sit down for months and develop the most awesome software package the world of press has ever seen, will it actually solve the quality issues articles have? And more importantly, if sold to other papers, will it suddenly solve their problems?
Will it make journalism honest and trustworthy instead of lies and clickbait bullshit?
I'm not sure how much blame to put on broken publishing workflow, a lot of this seems really to be about broken incentives - "deadline pressure to publish fast before the competition" that leads to the "many articles, as sensationalist as possible, truth be damned" mentality, especially in the management layer.
But you did give me a pause here. Only recently I had a chance to peek at internals of a tiny part of manufacturing industry, and oh boy how much money they waste on badly designed software, which is badly designed because of deadline pressure and top management pressuring to iterate over a broken software package (and then messing with the process) instead of scrapping it altogether and doing it right. Maybe software is more to blame than I thought.