This is spot on. The major problem here is that content is now largely generated based on maximizing ad revenue. News publications developing content aren’t all that different from SEM campaigns. When editors and publishers use article clicks as a performance benchmark, as many do these days, this is bound to happen.

When has news content not been about maximizing ad revenue? That's been the model for decades before the internet.

This is similar to how today's high-margin advertising funded companies (e.g. Google, Facebook) can afford to pursue out-there projects with no prospect of making money in the short term. Investigative journalism was a vanity/halo product that usually didn't make money, funded by people overpaying to advertise in the newspaper.

In a case of perfect competition and low barriers to entry, newspapers have to prioritize minimally expensive content as a supporting scaffold for advertising. Newspapers are much closer to this "perfect competition" case now than they were in 1990. (A very few newspapers like the New York Times achieved "escape velocity" to reach a national audience on the strength of their reporting.) Likewise, if Google were up against a dozen other nearly-as-good search engines, neither it nor its competitors would have the luxurious cash surpluses for "moonshot" projects.

The golden ages of AT&T and IBM were also back when they enjoyed monopolistic pricing power. They could afford to do Nobel Prize winning research instead focusing slavishly on cost efficiency. They overcharged everyone, and a bit of that surplus money was reinvested in scientific research and product quality that was higher than what an equilibrated competitive market would converge on.

I wouldn't give AT&T a telephone monopoly again just to bring back Bell Telephone Laboratories. But certain kinds of positive externalities seem to emerge only from businesses enjoying fat margins and high pricing power. One of those positive externalities, in the case of newspapers in the 20th century, was deep reporting.

This has always been true. But “old media” was the same for everyone, so maximizing ad revenue was achieved through capturing the middle of the distribution (engagement is lower, but there’s much more people).

Now we can tailor for every individual, which means maximizing ad revenue is about pandering to the tails of the distribution (where people are super engaged even if the numbers are more limited).

Exactly - the have to please the same platforms and systems.

Also since the articles are laid out physically before you in a predetermined order, far more of your senses are engaged. You are also more likely to serendipitously read an article far from what you would normally be interested in.

Another HN-reader who doesn't use an ad-blocker?

Occasionally, I get to see things like the NYT on someone's computer who doesn't have an ad-blocker installed, and it is deeply shocking and quite disturbing.

With an ad-blocker, however, it's a remarkably pleasant experience, with almost zero distractions. There's even a "physical layout" that works more or less the same way as the paper version.

Caveat: I do pay for a subscription to the NYT, which may change my experience somewhat.

I remember the Economists app, having layout with sensibly named articles in sections that are relevant (so I can skip the style section), and first paragraphs that layout the meat of the article so I could skim it. Very good for me, but terrible for "engagement".

I can subscribe to them, unfortunately because they also run dark-patterns: you can subscribe online, but have to call a number during British Business hours to unsubscribe (I sent an angry email to their support, but still).

That’s an awfully cynical take when all you have to ask is how these publications could stay afloat without drawing readers in. They’re in a tough spot when people are opting for their Facebook feed over paying for articles from proper journalists.

Cynical? It seems accurate to me, and you even say they're in a tough spot.

The sad part is whatever drove them this direction is destroying them, but I think it came from inside, not twitter.

At least the NYT has a daily podcast, an updating podcast on the impeachment (when the impeachment happened), a podcast series on engagement algorithms in radicalizing people, I think several more. The Atlantic, The Daily Beast, NPR (So many NPR podcasts), etc. also have podcasts.

I think podcasts are well covered and this argument is coming from a place of ignorance.

I think my argument still stands, newspapers are still in the print business. Doing a quick search of other papers seems to show a trend of having a podcast as an afterthought and/or treating it as a way to deliver radio content. Putting a radio show on the internet doesn't make it a podcast. Give me a discussion, a long form interview, something real. I don't want cuts, voiceovers, musical interludes, or scripts. I'm coming down hard on the production quality because it's a sure sign that something has been editorialized to death, generally by a committee of people with competing interests and vanities. Too many cooks spoil the broth.

which market is that? Historically, US newspapers made most of their money by selling advertising. Just was with Google (and Facebook) today, the market wasn't readers - readers were the hook to get the actual customers - advertisers - to pay in.

Newspapers are not going to get that market back, no matter what they do.

In the end, that sort of journalism may need to rely on donations. We're simply no longer wired to pay for that sort of information and media. If everyone changed at once, we might be retrained to pay, but I doubt that would happen.

And if a newsroom can't do that better than somebody on social media, it should hire that person (or at least commission a piece).

I think what happened is that it turned out the real value newspapers provided wasn't the expensive high-quality content, but simply the printing and distribution which used to have immense barriers to entry. The Internet shattered those barriers to entry, and it turned out that all that people wanted was to have access to some timely shared national/regional/local content and that the cheaper content would tend to win.

I don't know man? Many have tried, all have failed. Even newsletters, in the end, write what readers want to hear. Some of the most radical and extremist information out there, is disseminated by newsletters.

I think OP hit on the crux of the issue, technology, or "the smartphone" if you want to pin it on that, has changed not only methods of consumption, but consumption behavior and expectations on a fundamental level. And I think that applies to all media, not only news. The seeming efficiency of information and media delivery on a smartphone just makes us think differently about the value of information and media. We start wanting the information we want, and we start blocking the information we don't want. After a while, information and media we don't want won't even show up for us. It's massively efficient customer service on a global scale. I'm not sure what can reasonably be done about it?

The news corporations chose money over morals. They decided to become clickbait tabloids to chase ad revenue. I don't think anything of value would be lost if we saw some of these media giants go under.

I would go further than you and say that publishing fiction based loosely on current events under the guise of “news” has negative utility, and much would be gained by getting rid of it.

That said, I don’t know how to solve this! It — along with every other case where capitalism produces suboptimal outcomes — is an example of Goodhart's law, so the issue will come back fast if we tried any simple and obvious solutions.

IMO, the money and the passion is there. I don't see why there can't be an NRA / Sierra Club / Red Cross type organization for true investigative, insightful, trustworthy journalism.

The issue is that people can already get "news" for free, so they wouldn't see the need to support such an organization. We as a society need to rebrand Fox, CNN, etc as current events based entertainment media.

> I don't think anything of value would be lost if we saw some of these media giants go under.

I do. Democracy requires citizens to know the facts at a level of understanding that is actionable. It takes a lot of work and skill to distill the chaos of mass human behavior into something that voters can make sense of and journalists are the closest we have to experts at that process.

I agree with you that good journalists are essential to society 100%. I also think that the current state of affairs is doing more harm than good. We would be better off as a society if CNN and Fox News dissolved tomorrow.

> In a capitalistic ecosystem where the fitness function is profitability, the only organizations that survive are the ones that choose money.

What about the Red Cross, the NRA, the Sierra Club, the NAACP, the ACLU? There is absolutely room in a capitalist society for non-profit organizations that at least some segment of the population are passionate about enough to fund them.

In the modern age, there is also room for independent journalists. Thousands of Youtubers and podcasters make a living through patreon, why not journalists? With the internet, you don't need to backing of a massive news outlet to have your story printed and distributed.

Good point. Yes, we are not quite living in a libertarian paradise/hellhole of pure capitalism yet. :)

Even there, though, non-profits do compete for donor dollars and the competitive pressure is not always well-aligned with the altruistic goals of the organization.

> There is absolutely room in a capitalist society for non-profit organizations that at least some segment of the population are passionate about enough to fund them.

I agree, but I hesitate to rely entirely on the largesse of those with spare cash to support journalism. Journalism is a vital function for democracy, and democracy should support all of a nations' people, not just the views of those with extra money.

There are, of course, many wealthy people willing to support journalism that protects the poor too, but I worry as always about bias.

> In the modern age, there is also room for independent journalists. Thousands of Youtubers and podcasters make a living through patreon, why not journalists? With the internet, you don't need to backing of a massive news outlet to have your story printed and distributed.

I have some but limited faith that "all bugs are shallow" applies to investigative journalism. Yes, independent journalists can dig up and find a lot of stuff. But there's really something to be said for the doors that get opened when a journalist from a well-regarded important publication knocks on them.

When the Washington Post asks a politician a hard question, they feel some pressure to answer. When J. Random Youtuber does, not so much.

In a moralistic ecosystem, you have a totalitarianism of the "morals" of whoever is in power.

I like mine, which probably significantly overlap yours in most of the ways that count. Not a big fan of Stalin's.

> In a moralistic ecosystem, you have a totalitarianism of the "morals" of whoever is in power.

All ecosystems reflect the values of those that are in power. The current capitalistic ecosystem reflects the value that maximum profit is good (in the moral sense), that one of the primary obligations of the individual is to consume products, and that you provide value to society by working a job that pays you money.

Indeed, because they are in such a tough spot, it suggests that they might be pushing towards doing unethical things in order to stay afloat.

WaPo and NYT dishonest political activism is far far worse than BuzzFeed's entertainment listicles.

Objective journalism was never ever a thing. That's why Manufacturing Consent happened and all the works from Edward Bernays and all the way to Noam Chomsky.

What journalism had before though is just more consistency in worldview, because mass media was very centralized and pushed much more consistent propaganda with nothing to oppose it.

Ie, you can read the French newspaper, "Canard Enchaine" and verify that it doesn't tick the checkboxes of the five filters of editorial bias. Nonetheless that's a very opinionated newspaper. Opinions are by definition subjective. And, as even Chomsky acknowledged, journalists intentions are in the majority good. But, like we are, are very much trapped in an unavoidable ideology.

What's the wrong way? Personal attacks, attacks on groups of people, and/or consistently too much snark and not enough substance. Complaining about the moderation and/or downvotes doesn't go over big, either.

Instead, journalism got marginalized and polarized. It's sad.

"An availability cascade is a self-sustaining chain of events, which may start from media reports of a relatively minor event and lead up to public panic and large-scale government action. On some occasions, a media story about a risk catches the attention of a segment of the public, which becomes aroused and worried. This emotional reaction becomes a story in itself, prompting additional coverage in the media, which in turn produces greater concern and involvement. The cycle is sometimes sped along deliberately by 'availability entrepreneurs,' individuals or organizations who work to ensure a continuous flow of worrying news. The danger is increasingly exaggerated as the media compete for attention-grabbing headlines."

So I think the challenge is well illustrated by the example they gave of when a president says "Go back to where you came from" to X-th generation immigrants.

- I feel like I'd be kidding myself not to read this as nationalist/racist. However, newspapers have traditionally been hesitant to make "value judgements" about current politicians. How can the press be honest and realistic, without condoning or condemning such remarks? (Or to make the example harder, could you hypothetically write an article about Hitler without legitimizing nor condemning him? Would failure to condemn him in a "purely objective" historical piece not read as an endorsement?)

- Or, just as easily, take Bush an Iraq. What was the correct phrasing to describe a war in Iraq based on evidence that proved to be false? Is there a way to communicate the facts without anchoring the value judgements?

Was it though. That this is considered some staggeringly deep philosophy-of-journalism challenge says a lot about the level of corruption in the media.

I wasn't familiar with that quote. I had read Scott Alexander's post about how Trump is constantly painted by the media as overtly racist but actually isn't, so I was curious what the context was and what caused him to say this. The quote comes from a couple of tweets:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/11503813942349414...

"So interesting to see “Progressive” Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly...... ....and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run. Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how...."

Although the media repeated the "go back" part with a megaphone, they entirely dropped the bit where he asks them to come back later, once they figured out how to better run a country.

In these tweets Trump is making a political point about culture and government, not race. If he hated people based on race he wouldn't be telling them to come back to the USA when they become (in his view) less left wing and more governmentally-aware. It's a minor spin on a well worn right-wing talking point: socialist ideas have been tried in socialist republics and they're bad places to live, full of corruption and poverty.

Yet this two tweet statement, easily quotable in full anytime someone wants to refer to it, is presented as a challenge of the form "how do we say Trump is racist even more loudly than we already do".

It's this kind of thing that means I don't subscribe to the Economist anymore, nor do I care about other formerly respectable media outlets. I want objective facts that don't tell me what to think, with clearly separated analysis and context (ideally, separate outlets). Yet they're all engaged in massive amounts of selective quoting, manipulation, pushing their own extremist agendas on the reader base, and they're all desperate to find pseudo-intellectual justifications for even more fully embracing the total corruption of their industry.

Yesterday I suggested that we need to get rid of the downvote button. I see a problem where prevailing opinions only become reinforced with double the efficiency. It may even be greater because of the psychological effect of "grey = bad" or "collapsed = bad".

edit: typo desired->designed.

Obviously, we're doing it here right now, which brings me onto a second point - I have found that Hacker News is frequented by similar-minded people who will take my ideas in good faith, so I take time to post here. But I no longer bother with other platforms that would downvote me for saying the same thing.

And so, we're becoming inexperienced with ideas we disagree with.

There's a "iterated prisoner's dilemma" thing going on, where the side that plays "defect" all the time has got the upper hand.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karpman_drama_triangle

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication

I agree that "hero" in original framing basically favors status quo.

Applying Karpman's triangle assumes both parties genuinely want to (and can) move forward.

I was reminded of this thought: "No matter how considerate you are, or how much effort you put into avoiding my triggers, the total freedom in the world does not increase until I learn to release the grip they have on me." (https://twitter.com/RichDecibels/status/1197769030880419841)

I recently dropped a link to the KDT into a rather mad online flame war that took a Facebook forum by surprise.

It may have made a few participants stop and think, but overall it was a low EQ mistake and didn't go well. I don't recommend it.

Perhaps less than other platforms but certainly a thing - often with no counter comment to explain. All seems a bit small-minded.

I'm probably one of the people that would be categorized as a techno-libertarian (even though I don't live in SV), but I get downvotes all the time as well.

This community is a lot more diverse than just the techno-libertarian crowd. There's no lack of people in opposition to the techno-libertarianism as well downvoting the techno-libertarian comments and upvoting those in opposition to the techno-libertarian comments.

Basically I downvoted this comment for presenting the situation as one where only their views are getting downvoted excessively because they believe themselves to be in the minority when my experience clearly falsifies the assumption that it's only non-techno-libertarian comments being downvoted.

Furthermore, HNers tend to downvote comments that speculate on why things are being downvoted. The truth is that you have absolutely zero knowledge into why a comment was downvoted unless someone replies to say they downvoted and explains exactly why they did so like I just did. Anything other than that is pure baseless speculation and that doesn't get you very far in a community that prefers statements based on evidence.

Also, complaining about downvotes is known to get you downvoted because it's generally been observed to contribute negatively to the quality of discussion. You shouldn't complain about downvotes and instead you should add a comment where you argue your point better and try to gain karma with a new better comment than complaining about downvotes on a previous one that didn't succeed.

Is it the "buttons" or the "gamification" that is driving the change in scale? Or is it just that there are more people online, with easier access to sharing content, and perhaps also - easier access to creating content?

I really don't know the answer to this, but it seems like everyone always blames social media, whereas I think the problem is basically a people-problem, not a tech-problem - give more people a voice, and you might not like what you hear.

If you're looking at social media newsfeeds all day, the algorithm is going to emphasize the things people are passionate about sharing. The people you follow become your front-page editor.

In the end, GP's perception is more about what he's reading and how he's receiving it than what real reporters do every day.

Most heavily downvoted posts I see on here tend to be people transparently arguing in bad faith, or being unnecessarily rude in ways that aren't quite obvious enough to attract proper moderation.

Sure sometimes it's just opinions that most people disagree with, but overall I think the downvote button is a positive force (and the comments are still there, you can judge for yourself if they were worth it).

(If you want to see all the terrible comments that get posted, turn on the showdead option on your user profile. Otherwise you get an unrealistically sunny view of the quality of discourse here).

But... I don’t always see that being applied. I regularly upvote graying content that I vehemently disagree with if the commenter is making an earnest point in a respectful way. I do sometimes wish that the downvote button came with a selection box for what norm was being violated, because I think downvotes should require more thought and carry a little more friction.

That said, a friend asked me just yesterday if HN was the last place on the Internet I still comment, and I realized it is. On balance, I find the discourse and application of voting to be generally acceptable and better than other forums that I’ve mostly given up on.

If I comment that the earth is flat or that the sun revolves around the moon I would expect that comment to be filtered out by the community rather than something to bother the mods about.

About the only comments that remain factually accurate without committing sins of advocacy in political stories are those that acknowledge that the issue is complicated, that there are many sides and that there isn't anything conclusive.

The more certain/convicted about an issue a commenter comes, the more likely they are going to get downvoted in political stories. My observation is that those comments that practice the principle of charity with their interlocutors are those that are more likely to be upvoted. How you say something is more important than what you're saying if you're trying to reach common understanding in earnest.

Technical stories generally don't have positions and advocacy except advocacy in favor of intellectual curiosity.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpMvS1Q1sos

I don't think the commentators are "breaking the rules," per se, but they aren't contributing positively. I'm sure they feel their political opinion is being suppressed, but my votes reflect that I come here for technical insights, not politics.

When only upvotes exist, it’s very difficult to remove bad content. It also favors vapid, pleasing posts that will easily get upvotes.

I have a fair amount of karma on HN, but in the past few years that karma plateaued and I find myself getting as many upvotes as I did before, but now more downvotes.

I'm sure that I'm not the only one that has experienced seeing their comments oscillate between black and grey.

My theory is that the Fed is printing so much easy money that money has become effectively worthless to those who already have it. Some people can throw it out the window and it will come right back to them. In such an artificial environment, the only assets that have real value are those which can transcend the current monetary reality.

If interest rates ever go up, fiat currency will become more valuable. That means that the price of everything would drop (since prices are determined relative to fiat)... One of the few assets whose value would not drop so much if fiat becomes more valuable is "brand awareness" aka "consumer mindshare". That's why value creation is worthless and everyone is focused on zero-sum games and why some of the most valuable startups in the world don't make any profits. Their rich investors are not interested in today-money (of which they have an unlimited amount), that's worthless, they want tomorrow-money! They will throw away as much money as necessary on advertising to secure their current economic position in tomorrow-land.

Also, I think that the reason why the quality of journalism degraded is also because consumer mindshare has become too valuable relative to everything else to let the truth get in the way. The truth doesn't efficiently align with the goals of corporate sponsors to increase brand awareness and gain consumer mindshare.

Fed money-printing broke investors' financial compasses such that most of them can't tell the difference between creating real economic value and flushing money down the toilet. If anything, flushing money down the toilet tends to yield higher returns; this is because corporate exits at the end of the VC funnel are fueled by corporate debt which is freshly printed by the Fed.