Did social media help kill the newspaper?
-
@catseye3 said in Did social media help kill the newspaper?:
@aqua-letifer said in Did social media help kill the newspaper?:
Dopamine.
Then we really are screwed.
It's how those platforms were designed. I mean that literally.
-
“I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.” ~Winston S. Churchill
-
But televised news and news radio has been “free”for decades. There is more to the story…
-
@mik said in Did social media help kill the newspaper?:
They are built much like a slot machine, with roughly the same expectation of reward if you just look at the next thing.
But what about smart people, like the people who read WSJ? People like . . .
Um.
Well, like . . .
Gimme a minute.
Okay, I get your point.
-
@lufins-dad said in Did social media help kill the newspaper?:
But televised news and news radio has been “free”for decades. There is more to the story…
But before the internet, the average person couldn't just start their own news network or radio show. Distribution was extremely expensive, which meant that there were only so many sources. Competition was severely limited.
Now, we live in a world in which you could start your own YouTube channel. And because these platforms aren't limited to genre, you in your house, with a camera and computer, can provide direct competition to CNN.
As a concrete example, CNN has about 15 million followers on Instagram. The Rock has 17 times as many followers. It's 2021. An ex-wrestler is curruently destroying a national news network in terms of today’s definition of “ratings.”
tl;dr:
- You get a dopamine kick from being on social media. One you don't get by watching the news. News networks are trying to remain competitive by shilling outrage, but it's still a losing battle. People would rather be on the 'gram than watch CNN.
- So if you're stuck with social media, then you're going to compete with everyone else on the platform. And we're social creatures. We gravitate toward people we think we like, not news networks. So, news networks lose to personalities.
Please love yourself.
-
@aqua-letifer said in Did social media help kill the newspaper?:
As a concrete example, CNN has about 15 million followers on Instagram. The Rock has 17 times as many followers. It's 2021. An ex-wrestler is curruently destroying a national news network in terms of today’s definition of “ratings.”
That explains everything, doesn't it?
A thought experiment for Aqua (or anybody): Can you envision a set of conditions where good newspapers regain a market? What would need to happen?
-
@aqua-letifer said in Did social media help kill the newspaper?:
But more generally it was distribution in the hands of the public, and the expectation that online content should be free.
This. Plus the internet making all news real-time, defeating the whole purpose of a “news paper”.
-
@catseye3 said in Did social media help kill the newspaper?:
A thought experiment for Aqua (or anybody): Can you envision a set of conditions where good newspapers regain a market? What would need to happen?
At a previous job, I hung out with one of my editors most mornings, and we'd kick this around pretty regularly. You've got to be careful about what you come up with, because the solution has to be pragmatic or you're wasting your time. It does no good to sit around, point fingers and dictate to the world how it should be.
The problems are these:
- How do you win the game of attention? You have to get people to care more about town council meetings than Home Depot sales, Tik Tok remixes, and what Dwayne Johnson is doing that day. And like 89th said, you have to get people to care more about being right than being first. Good luck.
- How do you make money? Even if you win the attention game, how do you monetize? Ads are completely out, they're a dead revenue model. Subscriptions are a very hard uphill battle if you're starting from scratch.
Honestly, I think we need to play within the confines of the game everyone's already playing. The "just the facts, ma'am" horseshit is dead and gone. Local news needs to be delivered by personalities that are fun to follow. Followers need to establish parasocial relationships with those giving them their local news.
That's the best I can come up with. I hate it and it seems like a shit solution, but at least you can say it hasn't yet been tried.
-
I'm thinking backlash.
75 years from now, when the so-called "news" venues are so clogged with garbage that real actual news is nearly invisible in the mass of dumbness and what there is of it is crap, somebody will happen upon a website that features the story of the history of the Chicago Tribune, and they're like, "Hey! Look at this! Look how clean they were in those days!" Somebody else says, "Wow, that is so cool! And look, they didn't even print comments!" Word spreads, and a descendent of Bill Gates says, "Look, I've got money. Let's put an edition of this bad boy on the street and see what happens!"
The crowd goes mad! The paper sells out in an hour! Second, third and fourth editions are published, and it's still not enough! Heard on the street: "No comments! No fucking comments! Why did it take us so long to do this???"
Here's where my dream gets really silly. Social message boards become . . . like . . . completely empty . . . echoing silence.
Okay, I'm off the rails.
Sigh.
