Re:All models are wrong, but some are completely wrong
by closeparen on Sunday April 05, 2020 @07:01PM
(#22789466)
This is well known in the industry. The attitude among journalists was that they had a sort of professional and civic duty to “feed people their vegetables.” But that’s a bit too high on Maslow’s hierarchy to be thinking about when you’ve laid off 80% of the staff and still barely make payroll. (My dad lived through the peak and much of the decline at our city paper before he got out).
Re:All models are wrong, but some are completely wrong
by Viliam1234 on Sunday April 05, 2020 @06:54PM
(#22789418)
The problem is also in the change of how the demand can manifest. For example, I would never buy a clickbait newspaper. But sometimes I click on clickbait articles online. In both cases, there is a part of me that is interested, and a part of me that knows better. If it only requires a mouse click, the interested part sometimes wins. If it requires taking out my purse, the interested part loses this fight.
The horrible thing about online advertising is that it allows people to make profit from making you look at something, even if it immediately makes you disappointed. From that moment, the need to write non-disappointing articles has decreased significantly.
Re:All models are wrong, but some are completely wrong
by jlawson on Sunday April 05, 2020 @05:00PM
(#22788691)
Definitely true. We could compare it to the food industry (from production to retail including restaurants).
Its ideal purpose is to provide people with nourishing, healthy, enjoyable food.
But its actual incentive is to give people the food they choose to buy, which often isn't nourishing or healthy.
Re:All models are wrong, but some are completely wrong
by marcus_holmes on Sunday April 05, 2020 @05:13PM
(#22788775)
This is true. You can do good journalism and lose money (or have a wealthy backer who funds your loss-making newspaper) or you can make a profit by getting your "journalists" to publish lots of sensationalist stories. Y'know, Clickbait. (source: I ran a newspaper).
Re:All models are wrong, but some are completely wrong
by amitdeshwar on Sunday April 05, 2020 @06:57PM
(#22789430)
What about 538?
Re:All models are wrong, but some are completely wrong
by AnthonyMouse on Monday April 06, 2020 @01:53AM
(#22791198)
Does 538 have broad-based popular support?
How does its viewership compare to that of gossip-based media like E! or anger-based media like Fox or CNN?
This is the reason for the enduring power of the filter bubble: it is a stable equilibrium because it serves both the purposes of the demand and supply side.
You can test this by making high-reliability websites that state honest priors. You'll get an audience but the audience will be pretty specific to your subject matter and not be popular. No information source has had all of the following characteristics:
* Broad-based popular support
* High information content
* Novel information, i.e. information you can't get elsewhere
* Sustained presence
This may actually be desirable. Novel reliable information is an advantage, but it may not be a present sufficient advantage, and species survival may depend on presently boosting those capable of acquiring and utilizing information advantage. i.e. a time may come when we need to be good at it - if we have more people with this characteristic then, it'll lead to better outcomes.