
Marc Andreessen: Why I’m Bullish on the News - prostoalex
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/marc-andreesen-why-im-bullish-on-the-news-105921_Page2.html
======
aasarava
Wow. If news is only "content" that exists to sell advertising, then sure, go
ahead and believe that there'd be no problem if journalism were to "tear down,
or at least modify, the 'Chinese wall' between content and the business side."

But if news consists, in some significant part, of journalism -- of gathering
perspectives and verifying facts and giving voice to stories and ultimately
serving as an independent check on government and power -- then it is
troubling to think giving up on this is the only future Andreessen sees for
news.

~~~
splittist
An independent check on government and power? Where and when has this
happened? I know this is the story journolists (sic) tell themselves, but for
all of its adoption of a neutral speaking-truth-to-power self-description, the
modern practice of reporting is pretty much in lock-step with (one could
almost say 'produces and reproduces') the establishment.

~~~
edanm
What do you consider Watergate? Isn't that usually held up as an example of a
check on government?

~~~
aasarava
Right. Or if that question isn't current enough, how about: What do you
consider the Snowden revelations about the NSA?

There may well be a lot of bad, boring, or inconsequential journalism out
there designed to generate click-throughs -- the push for this is partly why I
left the industry -- but you can look up the list of Pulitzer Prize winners,
recent and past, if you need a reminder of why we need an independent press
that acts as a public service.

~~~
splittist
OK. I have contemplated the list of Pulitzer Prizes for Beat
Reporting([http://www.pulitzer.org/bycat/Beat-
Reporting](http://www.pulitzer.org/bycat/Beat-Reporting)) as an example, and
fail to see anything that doesn't advance the dominant paradigm. If that is
what 'public service' means to you then I wonder why we need a whole estate
that arrogates such particular privileges to itself.

~~~
mpyne
> and fail to see anything that doesn't advance the dominant paradigm

Speaking truth to power _is not_ congruent to tearing down the dominant
paradigm.

If you oppose the dominant paradigm, it should be because the dominant
paradigm is wrong, not because it's dominant.

~~~
001sky
_giving voice to stories and ultimately serving as an independent check on
government and power_

What is this "check" then? SCOTUS checks legislation by throwing it out.
Nobody has elected or consented to "journalists" having a constitional role.
That being said, the constitution protects the people to talk amongst
themselves, so that the electorate is itself effective, and can check power
via the ballot box.

The issue at hand is the role of money in the "talk amongst yourselves"
narrative. And its potential corrupting influence (bascially--buying vote for
special interests and PR clients).

------
jacques_chester
I used to work on the business side of the house. In the classifieds
department of one of the first acquisitions of what became Newscorp -- that
formidable journal of record, the _NT News_.

Journalists irked me. Dangerous people. Arrogant. Flighty. Prone to exploiting
social norms of disclosure to get a story. Always in a rush to do the minimum
possible to hit the quota by deadline.

And essential to the functioning of a free and open society. Like lawyers, we
hate them, but we'd be in deep trouble without them.

We already have the Andressen model of "News". It's called long copy
marketing, and it's really annoying. No substantial positive public
externalities come from it. Oh, and I guess gossip sites too. A critical
bulwark of the yeomanry, gossip sites.

------
the_watcher
>> Here’s another thing holding back the future of news: the notion that
“objectivity” is the only model worth pursuing. The practice of gathering all
sides of an issue, and keeping an editorial voice out of it, is still relevant
for some, but the broad journalism opportunity includes many variations of
subjectivity.

Grantland, to me, has figured this out better than anyone else (at least of
the largest journalism endeavors). It helps that Bill Simmons is a pioneer of
open subjectivity as a modern journalist, but most of their staff blends some
level of subjectivity into their work (even Zach Lowe, who Simmons calls Spock
in a reference to his rationality, and who admits to losing his personal team
fandom after working as a journalist, has a weekly piece called "10 Things I
Like and Don't Like). It also is probably worth noting that, being an ESPN
website, they don't really need to worry about breaking news, as they just
work closely with the traditional "reporters" of ESPN (although even then,
guys like Marc Stein still inject their subjective views a bit).

There's a place for old fashioned, unbiased reporting. However, it may be the
case that this style of journalism becomes a supplement, existing on Twitter
and in interviews, to Andreesen's proposed "marketplace of ideas." The
decentralized nature of the internet makes this much more realistic than it
was when television and newspapers controlled access to information.

~~~
napoleond
I respect Marc Andreessen's opinion a lot, but that seems like a dangerous
idea to me. Further in the article, he's quoted as saying:

 _" There’s a reason so many newer sites are writing with verve and voice: It
works."_

I think that statement hinges pretty strongly on how we define "working", and
I would posit that page views and ad sales should not be the metric by which
we measure journalistic success. It's true that technology has made it easier
for a lot of people to publish their _opinions_ , and that's fantastic, but
there's still enormous merit in having news sources which attempt to present
news objectively.

~~~
the_watcher
>>page views and ad sales should not be the metric by which we measure
journalistic success.

That idea may have some merit, but journalistic success requires investment,
which generally requires return, and page views and ad sales (ad sales aren't
some new internet thing, either) are generally the fastest ways to generate
that.

>>there's still enormous merit in having news sources which attempt to present
news objectively.

He never claims otherwise. He explicitly qualifies his excitement over
increased subjectivity in journalism with a claim that objectivity isn't the
only worthwhile pursuit. He is simply excited that objectivity isn't the only
form of journalism being pursued, not advocating its demise.

~~~
napoleond
_He never claims otherwise._

Right, I just think it's a bit weird to laud the increase of subjective
reporting when it realistically also represents a decline in objective
reporting; an effect which is decidedly _not_ new and could reasonably be
argued to be suboptimal. (Don't get me wrong, I am aware that there was no
magical era in the history of journalism where reporters were magically
unbiased, but I _do_ think that objective reporting is valued less now than it
once was, and I think it's unfortunate.)

Regarding ad sales; it's true that ads have always existed but in the age of
subscription newspapers buying an ad in the more reputable ones cost more. Now
page views are king, and long-term objectives of maintaining and increasing
journalistic standards are no longer economically justified (or less so, at
any rate). The new reality is that producing "viral" content (ie. link bait)
is the key to making money in news, and I believe that to be at odds with high
quality journalism.

~~~
the_watcher
>>I just think it's a bit weird to laud the increase of subjective reporting
when it realistically also represents a decline in objective reporting.

This is only true if you believe that the total amount of "reporting"
available is static. That is not true. In fact, it's arguably been the
reverse, as the factors that have allowed more subjective reporting have also
enabled more to go into objective journalism (just Youtube alone has enabled
more to provide truly objective journalism in the form of easy filming). The
journalism game is not zero sum. It is likely correct that the percentage of
journalism that objective-style journalism has gone down, but it's almost
certainly not true that objective-style journalism has decreased in a raw
sense (for one, investigative journalism has never been more attainable for
those not specifically employed to do so - the fact that there are less
writers who are specifically employed to do so doesn't mean the amount
occurring has decreased).

There is also likely some level of nostalgia-based reasoning here, since prior
to the internet, it was substantially easier for those in control of the
distribution channels to get away with embellishment, while today,
inaccuracies would be caught much faster.

~~~
napoleond
Bear in mind that the rapidly increasing supply for news does not change the
relatively fixed demand. Also, while the barriers to production have
diminished, the barriers to _distribution_ (I mean actually getting in front
of eyeballs, not merely the potential for such) are still limited by either
that "virality" component or money.

As for nostalgia; people control distribution channels today, too, but that's
somewhat orthogonal to my point.

------
anigbrowl
[http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html)
points out some of the problems with this outlook.

~~~
tlb
Alternatively, it points out that half the news is already purchased, but
through a very inefficient pipeline where PR firms get most of the money. If
companies could buy press coverage directly from the news outlets, the outlets
could make more money from fewer purchased stories.

------
allochthon
_There ought to be more awareness and communication on both sides [business
and journalism], so that decisions can be made with full knowledge of the
financial and journalistic impacts._

Statements like this suggest to my mind that we're in a new gilded age, where
journalism becomes a marketing channel.

~~~
Elizer0x0309
Agreed. A lot of sensationalism. But on the other end, our BS meters are
getting better at detecting the latter. Hopefully not jaded though :)

------
pron
Not entirely in the spirit of this site, but this is Hacker _News_ , and it's
the weekend, and Mr. Andreesen says "presenting an event or an issue with a
point of view can have even more impact and reach an audience otherwise left
out of the conversation. There’s a reason so many newer sites are writing with
verve and voice: It works", so let me try presenting this article his way:

 _Marc Andreessen, the famous Silicon Valley mogul known for his vehement
defense of bigots and assholes, now teaches journalists why they 've been
doing it all wrong. Another Rupert Murdoch in the making?_

------
Theodores
It is interesting how people describe themselves:

> Marc Andreessen is co-founder of the venture capital firm Andreessen
> Horowitz.

I am sure that to most people here he is is afforded rock-star status because
he is _the_ guy that co-founded Netscape (and then went on to do other things
like dabble in VC). Interesting how Netscape is no longer the big thing on his
resume, he trades his reputation and name on what he does now rather than what
he did back then.

~~~
gargarplex
Dabble in VC? That's insulting and misrepresentative language. A16Z is on a
fast track to becoming the next sequoia capital.

~~~
Theodores
At times I do wonder if some people on this site have had their humour glands
surgically removed or whether some British phrases just don't travel well.
Clearly you don't do 'understatement' in your neck of the internets.

By way of an automotive analogy, if someone asked who Lewis Hamilton is, then
you could eulogize about how much of a living legend he is, ramble on about
his many victories, mention how he is Britain's wealthiest sportsman and so on
and so forth.

However, (and particularly to someone who really doesn't know who Lewis
Hamilton is), then you could quite reasonably say 'apparently he does a little
bit of driving'. That would not be a slight or an insult directed at Lewis
Hamilton or the person you are talking to. You could also say that Lewis
Hamilton has 'made a bob or two from it'. That would not be 'misrepresentative
language' in the pejorative sense, just pure understatement, that is all.

Anyway, who is this 'next sequioa capital' you speak of? Weird how they don't
use a capital letter for the word 'capital', but I digress. Do you honestly
think that Andreessen gives a damn about being bigger than them?

------
aaronbrethorst
I see this article as being summarizable as 'all news should be like Pando
Daily,' and that scares the shit out of me.

------
dredmorbius
A few points.

Andreesen argues: "But the objective approach is only one way to tell stories
and get at truth. Many stories don’t have two sides."

First: _this is a mischaracterization of objectivity._

Objectivity doesn't mean "consider both or all sides of an argument", it means
"judgment based on observable phenomena and uninfluenced by emotions or
personal prejudices" (WordNet 2006). Very often, one (or more) sides of a
story _is simply wrong_. Worse: they're often quite deliberately muddying the
waters.

This is a point emphasized by economic historian Philip Mirowski:
"[Neoliberals] honestly think that it's OK to pump lots of noise into the
marketplace of ideas. That doesn't hurt things."

See:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7ewn29w-9I](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7ewn29w-9I)
@ 39m30s

And this is pursued as a deliberate strategy called "agnotology" by Robert N.
Proctor of Stanford: "the study of culturally induced ignorance or doubt,
particularly the publication of inaccurate or misleading scientific data. "
More: [http://redd.it/2363bo](http://redd.it/2363bo)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnotology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnotology)

On Andreesen's idea of tearing down the "Chinese wall" between reporting and
business: "No other non-monopoly industry lets product creators off the hook
on how the business works."

First off, that's not true. Many high-value information-centric activities
function in just such a way: publishing, arts and theatrical groups, and more.
While they may produce "popular" works, a great deal of effort is put into
activities which reach deeper into meaning and understanding than the larger
market will generally support. There's a strong level of _positive_
externality associated with these activities -- that is, a public good which
market transactions cannot capture for the producer.

And so there's a reason for the Chinese Wall:

The market for news (as opposed to, say, the entertainment content produced by
Fox) is one of _information_ itself. And information is a very difficult
economic good at the best of times:

• It's nonuniform. One piece of information isn't interchangeable with
another, unlike, say, one bottle of water, shipment of grain, unit of lumber,
mass-produced garment, or unit of unskilled or semi-skilled labor.

• Fixed and marginal costs are highly disproportionate. Sending someone to
where the news is, or digging to the bottom of a complex story, is expensive
in labor, time, and other resources. Once produced, words, copy, audio, or
video can be reproduced and retransmitted around the world instantly for free.
Much as for software.

• There's a very strong time value. For electronic market trading, now
measured in miliseconds, and for much else, between minutes and a day or so
for breaking stories. The precise same work product _after_ its sell-by date
is effectively worthless.

• The potential for bias, accuracy, and relevance in news is profound. Skewed
reporting to meet business needs can very, very rapidly incentivize coverage
which is not actually useful, informative, or relevant.

There's a strong argument to be made, in my opinion, that news should be
strongly sheltered from market forces, and often the news sources which are
the most reliable do come from organizations which are not run as well, from a
business perspective, as they might be. Two of these, the British _Guardian_
and the American _Christian Science Monitor_ punch well above their weight,
and even _The New York Times_ , while profitable, is less so than its
operations, size, and influence would seem to dictate.

Yes, there are any number of inefficiencies and obsolete practices within
existing news organizations, but I find this set of prescriptions chilling.

If Andreesen's vision is the future of news, then I'm very, very bearish.

------
whoismua
Marc supports the "new" media, ala BusinessInsider. Ironically, they wouldn't
have a story if not for the old, "bloated media," since all they do is cut
/paste and rewrite a few sentences.

Real journalism costs money. A lot of money to produce and a lot of money (is)
lost since they don't coddle to say, Exxon, GE, MS or Google.

