Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
I find out what is going on locally on sites like Nextdoor.com.
I get local news faster and unfiltered, directly from my neighbors.
There’s nothing unfiltered about social media that feeds you content via algorithm or forums that use “community moderation”. You should consider reading this article [theatlantic.com]. You would do better to fire up phpBB, walk around the neighborhood, and invite your neighbors onto it.
Nextdoor is trash. It’s the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory [penny-arcade.com] at a local level, except, John Gabriel was wrong; anonymity is not required to become a total fuckwad. People will happily do it under their own names in the presence of people
Gawker did real journalism but got destroyed for doing the ugliest form of not-journalism…. ok!
Unfortunately, the local newspaper here deserves to die. When subscribers call about undelivered papers they promise to attend to it. And in a week or so they do. But they don’t refund the subscribers payments for papers that weren’t delivered. This has happened multiple times. Even people who had been subscribers for decades are starting to refuse to renew.
> they won’t be uncovering the corruption in your town council or dig into what’s being done about the terrible road condition at the junction
We call those people conspiracy theorists and flat earthers. There is no corruption and the roads are great.
The problem here is it’s about local news mostly…News is consolidating true, but it’s also more homogenised and bland.
The problem here is it’s about local news mostly…News is consolidating true, but it’s also more homogenised and bland.
Maybe. I’d be more interested in seeing the number of full or part-time journalists. I don’t particularly care where they work.
Thing is, printing dead tree editions has likely only got more expensive over time while the cost of epublishing has dropped. No one here will be surprised by those facts. If newspapers get replaced by Axios or Slashdot or Nextdoor or the neighborhood kid with a podcast, that’s not in itself a bad thing.
OTOH, it does take time and effort to sit through city council and school board
This will probably come as a shock to you but if there are no local news sources in a region then there’s no local news as there is no one to generate the news stories. That’s a perfect recipe for ineffective government and corruption
You’re confusing news sources with outlets. Web sites make it a lot easier to aggregate news across towns and counties. Instead of having an editor and printer and advertising department for each town, you have that for five or ten towns, and most of those people can gather and report news instead of being overhead. Instead of having one “newspaper” per town, you get one section on a bigger web site — and most of those involved in that web site are outside the jurisdiction of that little town where ther
You’re confusing news sources with outlets.
You’re confusing news sources with outlets.
No, I’m pretty sure I’m not.
Web sites make it a lot easier to aggregate news across towns and counties. Instead of having an editor and printer and advertising department for each town, you have that for five or ten towns, and most of those people can gather and report news instead of being overhead. Instead of having one “newspaper” per town, you get one section on a bigger web site — and most of those involved in that web site are outside the jurisdiction of that little town where there might be corrupt or inept officials.
Web sites make it a lot easier to aggregate news across towns and counties. Instead of having an editor and printer and advertising department for each town, you have that for five or ten towns, and most of those people can gather and report news instead of being overhead. Instead of having one “newspaper” per town, you get one section on a bigger web site — and most of those involved in that web site are outside the jurisdiction of that little town where there might be corrupt or inept officials.
What websites are you talking about because I don’t know what you referring to? Any news from any small county in the US that you see on Facebook is generated by local news outlets. Facebook doesn’t deal directly with reporters.
if I mention misinformation and your 1st thought is “that’s an attack on me!” what does that say about you…
if I mention misinformation and your 1st thought is “that’s an attack on me!” what does that say about you…
While you are trying to smear by implying that misinformation is intrinsically baked into conservatives views, the reality is that weaponized definition of misinformation was repeatedly used on conservatives to censor fact-based but politically inconvenient views. In the current regime of government-news-social media collusion the ability to define what constitutes misinformation is functionally indistinguishable from censorship. Just like all leftist supporters of Palestine, including Jews, are quickly dis
not profitable is not the same as not useful or not important.
And no one is obliged to reinvent news. You can and will instead deal with and enjoy the dribble of bite sized, generic outrage bait provided by the few megacorps who can cheaply provide that mush cheaply enough to turn a profit.
It’s obsolete making a living wage reporting on the malfeasance of your local council. But cheering that on the coming darkness is fucking perverse.
That’s why orgs like the BBC and NHK and NPR are so important. Because they are not directly reliant on ads for funding, they don’t have to constantly chase clicks. They are far from perfect, but as revenue from news has been in decline for decades, so have all the purely commercial providers.
COVID is a good example. You have the official government position, which is backed up by scientists with good credentials. You also have some cranks you think horse de-wormer is the way to go.
If you want “just the facts” then do you want the cranks presented equally to the expert advice of multiple governments, the WHO, and numerous experts? Given it was a new virus and everyone was still learning, there was no objective truth to side with.
That’s why orgs like the BBC and NHK and NPR are so important. Because they are not directly reliant on ads for funding, they don’t have to constantly chase clicks.
That’s why orgs like the BBC and NHK and NPR are so important. Because they are not directly reliant on ads for funding, they don’t have to constantly chase clicks.
However, they do have to chase government funding, which makes them beholden to political influence. They are not better, they are different.
I’m not sure about NPR, but the BBC is funded through a licence fee. Unfortunately the government can and does screw with it, and it has resulted in the BBC being less willing and less able to hold the government to account. Still, it’s better than all the alternatives.
NHK doesn’t seem to have that issue, but also does tend to be a bit soft on the government in general. I think that’s more of a cultural thing. And again, they are still the best source of purely factual news in Japanese (and their English we
That’s why orgs like the BBC and NHK and NPR are so important. Because they are not directly reliant on ads for funding,
That’s why orgs like the BBC and NHK and NPR are so important. Because they are not directly reliant on ads for funding,
When I listen to NPR on the radio, I hear get to them list their corporate sponsors. Even if a specific product is not being pushed, that sure sounds like a form of advertising to me.
What makes you think local news will dig deep into local corruption when national news is thoroughly uninterested in examining potential national corruption?
not profitable is not the same as not useful or not important.
Blasphemy! No dividends for you!
There is a significant aspect in print newspaper. Online news being continuous (content changes/increases each time I visit it), there is no checkpoint to me (‘me’ here stands for any news consumer) and as a result I am never satisfied that I have read today’s news. With print, the checkpoint is a day – once I have read the paper, I am done. Anything not in the newspaper but of importance that I need to know TODAY itself, I would in all likelihood receive it through some other channel (someone calling me u
You, personally, are an ignorant idiot.
Quick – what is your county or city or state council doing about taxes? Parking garage fees? School boards, and book bans? Is the guy running for city, county, state, or Congress another George Santos?
YOU DON’T FREAKIN’ KNOW, BECAUSE THERE’S NO LOCAL NEWS.
Well, where I live, more than half of them are already gone compared to 2005. Some published a printed version weekly for a while instead of daily until going fully digital and some others have just completely vanished.
I don’t want…
I don’t want…
This is all nice in principle, but in practice what consumers say and what they actually want is different. Overwhelmingly, regardless of political affiliation or education level, people want to have their existing beliefs affirmed. This is because reading something you disagree with is hard and changing your mind is a lot of cognitive work.
What killed printed news is not biases, they always been there to some degree, but easier access to a ‘quick fix’ echo chambers on social media.
Either I am weird, or you are very wrong.
Either I am weird, or you are very wrong.
Another explanation is that you are not objective toward yourself. Ask yourself the following question – what is the level of proof I would accept for something I agree with vs. the level of proof for something you disagree with. Don’t get me wrong, it is a good thing to strive toward objectivity, but you need to also acknowledge that even people that do so (not everyone) universally fail.
Another explanation is that you are not objective toward yourself. Ask yourself the following question – what is the level of proof I would accept for something I agree with vs. the level of proof for something you disagree with. Don’t get me wrong, it is a good thing to strive toward objectivity, but you need to also acknowledge that even people that do so (not everyone) universally fail.
Another explanation is that you are not objective toward yourself. Ask yourself the following question – what is the level of proof I would accept for something I agree with vs. the level of proof for something you disagree with. Don’t get me wrong, it is a good thing to strive toward objectivity, but you need to also acknowledge that even people that do so (not everyone) universally fail.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That’s why there was skepticism here on Slashdot about the latest “room-temperature superconductor,” and that reactionless “EM drive” a couple of years ago. https://xkcd.com/675/ [xkcd.com]
Ditto climate change. This has been studied since Lord Kelvin over a century ago. Personally, I’d need more than a journal article that sneaked through peer review. I’d need a LOT of evidence.
Yes, revolutionary developments do occasionally happen. Yes, our knowledge is evolving. B
Try AP and Reuters. They specialize in just the facts, mostly supplying other orgs but you can read their raw reports on their websites.
The BBC is good for just the facts too.
lol, wow.
No. There are absolutely no big name news sources that are focused on just the facts without jamming in a heavy political bias.
The only way these days to have half a chance at figuring out what’s going on is to read the stories from several sides and piece it together yourself. One article will utterly fail to mention a key fact which another focuses on and so on. The truth is not in the middle. It is where you can find enough pieces and set aside your own biases to put those pieces together in an honest way even when the end result isn’t how you’d like.
If your news sources consistently agree with your world view then you live in a bubble. Break out. You’re being lied to.
If one article from a reputable source fails to mention something that another does, it’s usually because they are being cautious and waiting for verification. Sometimes they publish with a note that something is unverified, but for example the BBC is often late to the game because they waited to verify first.
In other words, you are being lied to, and they tricked you into thinking that it’s because reputable sources are hiding things from you. It’s a classic trope in conspiracy theories – the reason inform
I second this. People can get very cynical about new sites, but there are multiple places that do analyses of the stories on many news sites. It’s how I found news sources I have leaned on successfully.
Two sites I can recommend:
AdFontesMedia
Static chart: https://adfontesmedia.com/wp-c… [adfontesmedia.com]
Interactive: https://adfontesmedia.com/inte… [adfontesmedia.com]
AllSides
https://www.allsides.com/media… [allsides.com]
Forgot to add though, it’s not just the facts that you want. It’s the selection of stories. Things that matter to you might not be worth enough ad clicks to get any prominence. You really have to be willing to dig if you want the full picture.
Maybe looking for news that doesn’t offend you is the wrong filter.
Normal, non woke, non rabid-right people cannot be offended by facts.
We love em.
They’re just hard to find.
Normal, non woke, non rabid-right people cannot be offended by facts.
We love em.
They’re just hard to find.
What you’re calling facts is just news that you don’t find offensive.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/art… [thetimes.co.uk]
If this was kalashnikovs found in every home in Mariupol by a Russian brigade, or scary black rifles found in homes in America, who would or would not run those sorts of factual articles? That’s what selection bias is. In this context the bias is against Gazan civilians, and the article was written in a country that isn’t exactly sensitive to NRA’s interests. In America it would be reworded by anything remo
I work, part time, at a local paper. and I do mean local. We cover most of 1 county and parts of 3 others. Our entire population in that area is less than some suburbs of Chicago, New York, Miami, or Detroit. Circulation is down, as expected because of the digital streaming-style news alternatives. We get hundreds of reports from the State Government per month, and if it does not directly mention or involve our area we leave it out. We still go to every City, County, Township and School Board meeting,
Thank you for the insightful post.
Let me just say I am…”unsurprised”.
You could replace most of these outlets with pre-literate children and a box of crayons.
And raise the standards…
I get more ‘socialist’ with age.
Whenever an important common need is failing to be met for a community and there is no economic incentive for an individual to step in to fill it, that’s when you start talking about funding a solution with tax dollars.
The 4th estate is important to the function of a healthy democratic state, and you don’t really see that until it’s too late. Like good security, it does very little when it’s working well enough to deter problems… but if you get rid of it, you’re going to have problems.
Random bloggers can’t be trusted to publish important information since they are motivated by fame and subscribers, you need people whose job and whose income depends on them reporting significant news accurately. In fact, these days you can’t trust the corporate media either. They too are chasing clicks more than stories, and have obvious strong political bias based on the desires of whichever billionaire owns them or controls their boards.
Having said that, there’s no real need to print that news on dead trees any longer in most places. Whatever used to be the community newspaper can now be the community news website – as long as it isn’t under the direct control of the organizations on which it should be reporting. No city councillor should be able to pressure an outlet into suppressing an inconvenient article.
Random bloggers can’t be trusted to publish important information since they are motivated by fame and subscribers, you need people whose job and whose income depends on them reporting significant news accurately.
Random bloggers can’t be trusted to publish important information since they are motivated by fame and subscribers, you need people whose job and whose income depends on them reporting significant news accurately.
but in the state-funded media case, their job and income depends on them reporting significant news in the way that the state approves. this is very dangerous for obvious reasons.
There is no slippier slope then state funded media.
There is no slippier slope then state funded media.
Claiming a slippery slope isn’t the compelling claim you seem to think it is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… [wikipedia.org]
After that, the UKs BBC does a fine job. Certainly not any worse than any of our major non governmental news organizations in this country and is absolutely critical of their government.
To be fair I could say most of the same about any American news outlet.
I miss the fairness doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… [wikipedia.org]
Wikipedia isn’t calling you anything. “Slippery slope” is a logical fallacy, end sentence. Wikipedia was just the link I chose so if you wanted to understand why you sounded ignorant you could.
Also, the BBC has been doing news for almost 100 years so I got a chuckle out of your “it’s only a matter of time” comment
The trick is to set it up right so the rest of the government can’t monkey in their operations and they’ve done a *pretty good* job at doing that although as with anything in this world, not perfec
There is no slippier slope then state funded media.
There is no slippier slope then state funded media.
What about encrypted police radio? They then give a radio programmed with the encryption code only to the “journalists” they trust to lick boots.
How far down your slope have the state-funded BBC and DW slid? Give me some examples of their sins, then explain to me how the corporate-funded media avoids making those same mistakes.
Because when I watch those outlets, the quality of what I see stacks up very favorably to corporate media.
Churchill was a man of his time and not such a great guy by today’s standards.
If you grow conservative with age – by the political definition not the non-political definition – you’re doing it wrong.
Having said that, there’s no real need to print that news on dead trees any longer in most places. Whatever used to be the community newspaper can now be the community news website – as long as it isn’t under the direct control of the organizations on which it should be reporting. No city councillor should be able to pressure an outlet into suppressing an inconvenient article.
The friction in reading “the news” on a website is much higher than you think. Clicking on a link to read an article means most peop
Unless its the NYT, WaPo, NY Post, or WSJ, 90% of the papers you get today are just pages and pages of AP and Reuters stories. They are not doing any journalism, they just publishing and they are mostly just doing layout and printing at that.
If it is one of the above papers, the journalism is mostly crap churned out by people who either never understood, forgot, or cynically seek to obscure the difference between what goes on the news and editorial pages.
There is is the big fear about lack of local news but I don’t see it. These conversations take place on Next Door, Facebook, at the PTA meeting. In most places I have been in the last 20 years the local television affiliates do much more and much more effective hard news gathering work than any local paper anyway. Their actual news program, websites, and mobile apps actually do a fairly good job of keeping people informed about what is going on in their community.
It is true that something has been lost in terms of deeper analysis and context that could be provided in longer form articles, but honestly I have not seen much of the that from many local outfits in the places I have lived and visited in a long time. Generally the local rag, prints articles very similar what you get from the TV people, because they long ago figured out the balanced of text to ad space and the public’s attention span were optimal around that.
There just are not enough people that want carefully crafted hard local news; so their hasn’t been much. That isn’t new though, its just people that have not been reading these papers anyway are taking notices because they are finally closing up the store fronts and pulling them from the vending machine outside the grocery store.
There is is the big fear about lack of local news but I don’t see it. These conversations take place on Next Door, Facebook, at the PTA meeting. In most places I have been in the last 20 years the local television affiliates do much more and much more effective hard news gathering work than any local paper anyway. Their actual news program, websites, and mobile apps actually do a fairly good job of keeping people informed about what is going on in their community.
There is is the big fear about lack of local news but I don’t see it. These conversations take place on Next Door, Facebook, at the PTA meeting. In most places I have been in the last 20 years the local television affiliates do much more and much more effective hard news gathering work than any local paper anyway. Their actual news program, websites, and mobile apps actually do a fairly good job of keeping people informed about what is going on in their community.
Good lord, you’re telling us you feel local internet gossip where anyone can say anything with zero accountability is a replacement for a proper local news source? Sounds more like an informational dystopia to me.
As for local TV news, in my experience outside of major urban areas it’s crappy to non existent so not really a replacement either.
Up here, there’s not much for “woke” newspapers: they were mostly all bought out by Post Media, so all we have is very conservative right-wing drivel, with brazenly obvious strong biases and agendas, driven by editorial control from another country. It’s so sad to see the state of media capture here. I don’t know where all this drivel about “woke media” is coming from, because it sure doesn’t describe the media landscape in North America.
Most would see the decline in newspapers as a good thing for the environment, but converting all news to a digital format isn’t necessarily the best move either. Even in the face of how most people consume their news.
A printed record of events distributed to many, is a hell of a lot harder to manipulate and destroy than a purely digital one. In the era of mega-corps consuming companies for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, all it takes is a new owner who wants to “edit” a few things in history they don’t agre
A printed record of events distributed to many, is a hell of a lot harder to manipulate and destroy than a purely digital one.
A printed record of events distributed to many, is a hell of a lot harder to manipulate and destroy than a purely digital one.
Unless, of course, Bill Clinton signs the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and makes massive media consolidation possible, then you can own all of the papers and they can all print the same lies.
My local paper told me a Republican signed that… lol
A printed record of events distributed to many, is a hell of a lot harder to manipulate and destroy than a purely digital one.
Unless, of course, Bill Clinton signs the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and makes massive media consolidation possible, then you can own all of the papers and they can all print the same lies.
A printed record of events distributed to many, is a hell of a lot harder to manipulate and destroy than a purely digital one.
A printed record of events distributed to many, is a hell of a lot harder to manipulate and destroy than a purely digital one.
Unless, of course, Bill Clinton signs the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and makes massive media consolidation possible, then you can own all of the papers and they can all print the same lies.
LECs starting up their own CLECs only to destroy them like they did the competition. Good times.
You used to be able to subscribe to (some) newspapers and magazines via Amazon Kindle. They don’t do that now. It was convenient because you could download the issue and read it offline.
Billionaires now own social media or TV stations.
Billionaires now own social media or TV stations.
Billionaires now own social media or TV stations.
Billions upon billions blown on advertising makes these entities attractive to billionaires.
Should corporate law ever change that doesn’t allow business to put the majority of marketing/advertising spend on the tax-deducting side of the books, media might be forced to create valid programming and reporting in order to stay alive because business would think twice about spending insane amounts of money that translates to media revenue.
It’s been interesting watching the decline of print media, and the newspaper specifically.
I delivered papers in the mid-90s as my first paid job. Must’ve been about 12 or 13 at the time. Up at 4am every day (no idea how I managed that), got all bundled up and – rain, blizzard, or shine – if that bundle of papers was on the corner, I’d be outside for 2 hours rolling them as I went, placing them in doors or paper boxes (because putting them in mailboxes was/is illegal). It paid a pittance. I hated Sundays bec
An example (ok, anecdote). We had a county council issue (the majority gerrymandered the county districts so two council members they didn’t like would have to run against each other). That made it into the local newspaper, and the result of that and other factors was that the gerrymandering majority is no longer a majority. But now that newspaper is gone.
Now we have an issue in the city, where a developer wants to turn nearly the last remaining greenspace into expensive high density housing, violating a
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
Old Manifest V2 Chrome Extensions Will Be Disabled In 2024
Scientists Use Raspberry Pi Tech To Protect NASA Telescope Data
Your files are now being encrypted and thrown into the bit bucket. EOF