curl 'https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/14/sports/tiger-woods-wins-masters.html' | perl -n -e'/"emotions":"([^"]*)"/ && print $1'
This one is a little surprising. Does the NYT think this article dashes any hopes readers might have of winning the Masters?
I guess it shows that it is all about marketing.
And yet, the NYT has withstood the pressure to become the ground level equivalent of an in-flight magazine.
Can we maybe credit them for that, instead of just assuming that everybody agrees that they will succumb to economic pressure without feeling the need to even make the case for it?
This predates the Internet; it's why glossy Sunday sections exist.
News are good when they are neither positive nor negative by design.
They are good when they are relevant, useful, and informative (including them not being cherry-picked examples of stories with no impact to their readership, e.g. about some sensational murder case 10.000 miles away, and so on).
These metrics should only be used for categorizing purpose only. We need to be very careful in using it as a driver for more of the same articles, because in the long run this will only create a feedback loop that will keep feeding us the same content and narrowing our views, making us blind to more critical issues at hand.
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/why-is-there-no-go...
Journalism has historically prided itself on telling the truth. The truth is not always a feel-good experience.
All good news, all the time is potentially a dystopian scenario where the truth is forbidden because it isn't profitable enough.
Also, competitive as positive? I'd see that much more as a neutral (or maybe negative).
Would you get the same result from USA Today, WSJ, WaPo, and the LA Times?
The favoritism towards certain groups and the dismissal of others raises a lot of eyebrows. I would say it is mainly relevant to NYC and to everyone else I would pass it in favor of a local news source. I would agree that it has become a fairly niche news source and it is quite amusing in my opinion how they are trying to hype up their ad units as they struggle with declining readership.
"Thousands killed in [less-developed country] civil war; more food left for survivors!"
"Average global temperatures up 4' C in past decade; boom in tourism in Hudson Bay and Siberia!"
"BigCo lays off 70,000 workers; social services employees self-worth increases!"
Remarkably, a majority of these feelings are positive, so this advertising initiative, which has been successful at increasing per-ad revenues by as much as 80%, is creating a financial incentive for the NYT to produce content that generates positive feelings in readers!
On its face, this is shocking to me. I would have never, ever expected positive content to be more profitable than negative content! In hindsight, however, after thinking about it a bit, it kind of makes sense. I'm now wondering, could advertising perhaps become (gasp) a force for good, at least in certain settings?