Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

But here is a counter question: why would I pay a journalist in the first place?

In other words, there must be an objective I am seeking and I somehow find this jouranlist or this group of jouranlist align with my objectives and beliefs. So how does a micropayment system can help promote free and honest journalism?

I wouldn't pay journalist working for Breitbart (Steve Bannon's news outlet) because I don't agree with them.




Bingo.

This is the problem.

If journalism is broken down into a market problem, (which will happen regularly on an American board for entrepreneurship) then the product will always be cat pics and scandal.

Because thats what people want. As someone said above, revealed behaviors of news consumers are different from stated behaviors.

If someone actually wanted objective information, they already pay for it - they go buy the wsj/bb for finance. If they want political analysis - they pay for those magazines.

I don't think Journalism works in a free market model.

The problem really boils down to 5-7 slots of short term attention span a human being has.

For all the desire to want good news, people will still dump that attention on junk food for the brain.

Since Good journalism is expensive, takes time to process, and may not be well received - its extremely time and attention intensive.

In a world where we're blowing that resource regularly, good journalism dies. It has to be capable of going toe to toe with attention seeking feel good material.

In a Market system - journalism end up being about hacking human attention. Otherwise not enough people reads it to support the paper.

This is generally a solved problem -

You pay the govt to make a single news agency - give it operating money, independence and stick an oversight group on top of it.

And you call it the BBC, and spend the rest of your days trying to defund it, while a majority of groups call it biased in one direction or the other.


No idea. Journalists to me perform the same function as search engine robots/crawlers. And probably have the same value as those robots do in the info economy.

Google hasn't created a robot to do indepth scans of lets say all the Wikipedia tennis tournament pages even if they can afford to do so technically and financially. Why? Cause its results returned are good enough for the waste majority of ppl. If I ask who last years 4 US open semifinalists were Google isn't able to produce just the 4 names. I can rant about how dumb that is. And why more in depth scanning/parsing is required.

But if Google can't find any great reason to upgrade its crawlers why should a news org do so. Maybe we are past the point where there is any great value.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: