[SandersAK]

What you're describing is the narrative that most media barons pushed from the 50's onwards - the notion of "quality journalism" - it's the reason the Pulitzer prize exists at all (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/04/2015-pulitzer...). It was built to legitimize newspapers.

Media barons didn't hire journalists because they were ethical and factually accurate. They created that narrative because otherwise those people wouldn't churn out relevant and timely content to suit their readership. When the readership changes, media follows it. There is no intrinsic value in serving up the truth as it pertains to stock price.

Now you may argue that places like the NYT are the exception. But even here, this high falutin branding is there only to justify the power of ads for a different (read: intellectual) audience. If the NYT was forced to focus on one of their verticals today, would it be news? No. It would be food, fashion, and lifestyle because that's what drives all their traffic.

[ForHackernews]

>> In the past, advertisers made ad buying decisions based in part on the reputation of the outlet

> But even here, this high falutin branding is there only to justify the power of ads for a different (read: intellectual) audience.

You two are in agreement.

[golergka]

Excellent storytelling, strong narrative.

Got any evidence to back it up though?

[SandersAK]

https://www.google.com/search?q=the+fall+of+journalism&oq=th...

There are dozens of papers written about this - but the main thought exercise is to just consider that if the "truth" was the core value of media, of course they would double down on it.

[golergka]

So, you're OK with wasting a lot of effort to tell a story, but when asked to back it up, you instantly resolve to the simple "google why I'm right".

People are certainly moving their efforts from facts to opinions and emotion.

[dang]

Could you please not argue like this on HN? It crosses into the sort of testiness the site guidelines are designed to exclude.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[golergka]

Thanks for remark. I explained the reason for my emotions down in the following comments.

[SandersAK]

Your replies telegraphed not curiosity or interest but just standard internet "source?" flame posts. It's not hard to google any element of what I'm saying to read countless articles in Poynter, NYT, CRJ etc to find stuff to back this up. Why should I waste my time when your mind is already made up?

I will just in case someone actually reads into your reply some genuine curiosity: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/09/business/media/the-return-...

Also, I worked in journalism for years and have met with and worked with most of the major media entities, specifically around editorial and business model, so I guess technically I'm a source too.

[dang]

Please don't get testy when someone else gets testy. It degrades the discourse as much as the other, and provokes worse.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[golergka]

You're right, my mind is made up - to a certain extent. If your parent comments would actually be written well and contain strong arguments, I could change my mind.

But instead, your parent comments reek of the same absence of essence as a lot of modern "high-brow" journalism - and that's exactly why I was so irritated. I'm sick and tired of longreads in NYT, New Yorker, Slate and other presumably good publications that focus on stories, narratives and individuals instead of facts and arguments. How many times have a opened a story about some kind of global phenomena that affects millions and instead of statistics and studies saw most text dedicated to few particular people affected by it! Just like your text - makes a good and emotional narrative, but doesn't have any logical arguments to support author's viewpoint.