[SkyMarshal]

That kind of modern journalism is absurd. Originally the rule in journalism was, the first paragraph must contain who, when, what, where, then subsequent paragraphs fill in the details in either chronological or logical order.

Now the first paragraph must contain an emotional human-interest style “hook” to rope in the reader, then bury the lede in some random spot in the remainder of the text, in an attempt to keep the reader searching for it, like a slot machine.

As soon as I realize that’s how something is written, I take that as signal it lacks the quality to stand alone and I discard it and move on.

[chongli]

Yeah. I can usually tell within the first couple of words if the article is worth reading or not. Anything that seems to start with a complete non-sequitur or some variant of “once upon a time” is an immediate back-button bounce for me!

[simplicio]

How can you start with a non-sequitur?

[quickthrower2]

Non-sequitur to the headline?

[dylan604]

> Now the first paragraph must contain an emotional human-interest style “hook” to rope in the reader

So news sites have become a recipe site? Except, you’ve limited to a single paragraph vs 7/8 of the page

[SkyMarshal]

It's more that they're using Skinner Box variable rate reinforcement bs to rope readers in and keep them reading, which explains why the text feels so randomized and out-of-any-logical-order.

https://www.nirandfar.com/want-to-hook-your-users-drive-them...

[khy]

"John Smith is buttering his toast with a spoon, much to the bemusement of our waitress Jane at the All Day Diner on the outskirts of Duluth Minnesota..."

[hammock]

NPR features are the same now, only on the radio

[ProAm]

How many news or journalism sites are you currently subscribed to?

[SkyMarshal]

None, why? Are paywalled articles written in the traditional way since they already have a revenue source and don’t need to addict people?

[ProAm]

So you dont pay for any of it and then complain this is what they have to do to get views and clicks. Chicken meet egg, egg meet chicken, pot meet kettle.

[_Algernon_]

If I start paying for it today, they wont magically start writing proper articles again.

The news media has gotten themselves stuck in a bad Nash equilibrium. Guilting indiviudals into paying wont change that. Systemic change is required.

[TeMPOraL]

> this is what they have to do

They could always close the shop too.

"We need to keep the revenue coming in these changing times" is not a justification for descending deeper and deeper into immoral and anti-social behavior.

Not to mention, the way market economy works means that even if we'd all start paying for shitty pseudo-journalism today, the influx of money will not make them climb back out of the ethical/quality hole - it'll only validate getting worse as a growth model.

[AdamN]

I pay about $2k/yr for news sites and the variability is high even for paid sites. Check out the WSJ Editorial pages if you want to observe diminished writing ability.

[SkyMarshal]

This whole thread we’re in was started by someone observing how well-written and clear the original article is, so I don’t think the only way to get clicks is to write in the way I’m complaining about.

[hengheng]

Condensing inflated long-form articles back to their useful size would be a worthwhile AI application, just like searchable podcast transcriptions.

[p1mrx]

https://www.boringreport.org/app does that, at least until the IP lawyers figure out what to do with it.