Ya, news stories shouldn't be held back in order to maximize their political impact. If they finished verifying and sourcing the info behind the story yesterday, it should be run today, no matter what else is happening today.
-
Features
Daddy’s Boy
- Thread starter Koyaanisqatsi
- Start date
Elixir
Made in America
Back in the day when there were newspapers, there was also a presumption that average Americans could simultaneously chew gum and walk. Now, both the newspapers and that presumption are gone. Americans are now seen by the media as able to process only one aspect of one story on a given day. And since their mandate remains (to promote the financial well-being of whatever medium they work for), journalists and editors must carefully choose the single aspect of the single story they are going to promote during any 24-hour news cycle.
repoman
Contributor
That CNN had the moral failing to cover the missing Malaysian plane as long as did at the exclusion of other stories says a lot. Also, that the audience was dumb enough to follow it.
Jarhyn
Wizard
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2010
- Messages
- 14,691
- Gender
- Androgyne; they/them
- Basic Beliefs
- Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
More, my response would be that the game theory surrounding journalism has changed. Gone are the days when you could pick up a newspaper and there were only a few stories were happening at a time. We are in a day and age where so much truest newsworthy stuff happens every day, that now there must be a triage. We have to prioritize whether we want to talk about Dump Truck's tax returns, or the rapist nominated to the court, or the bill attacking Fair Use, or the European effort to force content filtration on those incapable of implementing it, or the Russian attacks on our information and social networks. What was once a lazy stream of scandals and missing people and treed cats has now become a Fire Hose of toxic waste, and rather than focusing on the most immediate problem until it can be addressed, we change channels so fast that any attention to any one issue is so divided that we cannot leverage it at all.
By switching channels on the Kavanaugh firehouse to the tax issue, especially given that The tax issue could have waited INDEFINITELY, they have done a disservice to our ability as a society to spend time on this other issue. It would be like if there was a hurricane incoming on the west coast in a week, and then after a single day of talking about the hurricane, all news stories started focusing on a rock concert in town and the hurricane got bumped to the back pages. News organizations should keep talking about the hurricane so people keep an awareness of it; perhaps this is an ethical expectation one should have of the news, that hey report the most urgent news in a way that people will see it as urgent. It's just sad that there's so much urgent that nobody can keep a handle on it.
untermensche
Contributor
The rich write these things into the law.
This is not something Donny's dad invented.
But what is clear is the idea that Trump is self-made is about as big a joke as there ever was.
He is a pampered, pampered, spoiled, subsidized, pampered little child.
He is a con-man.
His father was a shady racist businessman.
This is not something Donny's dad invented.
But what is clear is the idea that Trump is self-made is about as big a joke as there ever was.
He is a pampered, pampered, spoiled, subsidized, pampered little child.
He is a con-man.
His father was a shady racist businessman.
Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
That is clearly not true. Here are poorly cobbled together screenshots of today's NYT website:
At the top (aka, "above the fold") they have extensive coverage of Kavanaugh and/or sexual assault as their primary focus (including in the other sections, like the OP-ED). Below that on the left (aka, "below the fold"), they have the piece I linked to (and two related offshoots), along with a piece on unemployment rates (above the piece I referenced) and something about Cindy Sherman's instagram feed, etc.
Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
Again, not true (see above), but even if it were, the NYT is not the only news organization and human beings are capable of multi-tasking. It is absurd to think that all news organizations are supposed to focus on just one story and nothing else, particularly if the argument is, "Americans are idiots, so news organizations need to spoon feed only one story per day."
Am I missing something to your argument, because this is truly baffling to me?
Elixir
Made in America
Are you perhaps conflating yourself with "Americans"?
And remember, it doesn't matter how many issues "Americans" can simultaneously process, it matters how many papers and online subscriptions (or in the case of TV news, pharmaceuticals) they buy.
Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
No.
I still don’t see what that has to do with the argument. All news organizations report on multiple stories every day and throughout the day. As is abundantly clear in the screenshots I presented from the NYT’s website, they published numerous pieces covering and related to Kavanaugh at the same time as they published the piece I linked to.
How is the fact that they published other stories a distraction away from the dozen or so pieces they published about and in reference to the issues surrounding the Kavanaugh story? For that logic to be sound, it would necessarily have to mean that all Americans are monolithic in their reading skills and attention spans; all news organizations are monolithic in their editorial content and structure, such that there is only ONE publisher; and that said organization only times the release of each story chronologically and sequetionally to be somehow perfectly timed for readers’ monolithic, story absorption/processing rate.
Just flip the argument. They published a story on Kavanaugh to distract away from the story of Trump’s tax evasion!
No, they didn’t. And no, it doesn’t work like that.
This is NOT to say that something salacious that occurs can’t pull focus away from another less salacious story, but that’s an entirely different situation. The piece about Trump’s family tax evasion was clearly months in the making. It also had no relationship—in regard to its theme or subject matter—to anything going on with the Kavanaugh story. Nor was it more (or less) salacious than the Kavanaugh story.
They are simply two entirely different stories, just like what happens in EVERY newspaper every day always.
Elixir
Made in America
Sounds to me like you never heard the phrase "above the fold".
That's where 99%+ of actual neural stimulation occurs. (Yeah, it's one of the 97.325% of all statistics that are made up on the spot, but you get the idea!)
Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
Elixir
Made in America
Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
My showing you that I know exactly what “above the fold” means—and actually used that phrase before you—makes your point?
Elixir
Made in America
Yes. ONE story above the fold. That's the limit for some significant percentage of American "readers".
(I know what "above the fold" means - it even has corresponding meaning for web pages.)
Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
Yes. ONE story above the fold. That's the limit for some significant percentage of American "readers".
(I know what "above the fold" means - it even has corresponding meaning for web pages.)
Look at the above the fold section again:
There are some 18 articles, many centered around Kavanaugh and/or sexual harassment, but several others that have nothing to do with either.
Aside from that fact, what has any of this to do with the earlier inaccurate claims of the NYT derailing the Kavanaugh story with the article I linked to regarding Trump’s taxes?
Elixir
Made in America
Yes. ONE story above the fold. That's the limit for some significant percentage of American "readers".
(I know what "above the fold" means - it even has corresponding meaning for web pages.)
View attachment 17989
There are some 18 articles, many centered around Kavanaugh and/or sexual harassment, but several others that have nothing to do with either.
Aside from that fact, what has any of this to do with the earlier inaccurate claims of the NYT derailing the Kavanaugh story with the article I linked to regarding Trump’s taxes?
It's a pattern, Koy - I'll give you my non-literal use of "above the fold". But I still disagree if you believe that a #1 headline doesn't glean the lion's share of readers' attention. It's a real problem. Part of it is that if someone sees the headline, rather than read the rest of the articles, they can (and do) pursue that same story online, on their phones, tablets etc. etc.. There's very little left of the time-honored practice of reading a paper front to back.
Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
The lead headline is supposed to get attention. ALL headlines are designed to get attention. That’s why they’re called “headlines.” What the hell does that have to do with anything itt or Trump’s taxes?
Elixir
Made in America
NOTHING! That's the point, Koy.
Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
So you had no point, or are you trying, once again, to make some sort of point, but failing to do so? Seriously. Because it seems as if you were trying to make some sort of argument about people today having short attention spans or something and that the NYT was distracting people away from one story by publishing another story, as if that’s not s.o.p. for all news organizations always (to publish multiple stories on an ongoing basis), implying that they should instead only publish one story—and nothing else—until that story has run its course.
Iow, you seem to be first blaming the NYT for publishing the tax story—because it took away focus from the Kavanaugh story—then shifted to pointing to the Kavanaugh story as being too much of a focus to the exclusion of other stories, and too prominently positioned (i.e., above the fold).
If I am misrepresenting your positions itt please clarify as I am genuinely confused as to what it is you’re arguing.
Elixir
Made in America
Never mind, Koy. I grew up reading newspapers. Front to back, including comics and obituaries. I don't think people read newspapers like that any more, at least not many do by habit. No biggie if you feel like there's more awareness of more stories than I do - we are each, to some extent, subject to opinions formed from our own experience. I miss Cronkite-type newscasts, where a number of stories were presented with a minimum of embedded opinion. If you don't, that's okay. But you will not convince me that the quality and quantity of story coverage has not changed. Some of it very recent due to Cheato's talent for creating so many messes at a time that no medium is up to the task. But it has been changing for a long time.