Settings

Theme

U.S. local newspapers are dying at a rate of 2 per week

twitter.com

29 points by bgm1975 3 years ago · 22 comments

Reader

softwaredoug 3 years ago

When we edit down the civic value of local newspapers, what is there? What value does a local newspaper offer that, say, a subreddit for a city doesn't offer?

For common, everyday occurrences, usually they are parroting whatever press releases are made by the authorities. OK, we can share and get that information ourselves these days.

What's left is local investigative journalism. Most local newspapers are pretty gutted to the point they don't provide this. Yet many still do. We want someone to dig into some issues with high journalistic standards, and not just acting as advocates for one issue or another. If that's the gap, how do we achieve this at a local level? How do we fund that work? Are there other mechanisms that do this well?

  • rnk 3 years ago

    I disagree. In the old days, when there were lots of small newspapers, most of them had reporters who went to city hall events and wrote and did investigations of things, went to school events, other city happenings. They usually didn't attack the foundations of the city, but making those events public with discussion was a great value. I love reddit and use it daily, but there's no way to know what neutral info there is, it's far from the neutrality of journalism.

    • Jarwain 3 years ago

      This triggered a thought; this puts emphasis on reputation, right? If there was an active redditor on a city's subreddit who builds a reputation for quality journalism, that kinda fills the gap.

      But reddit doesn't emphasize reputation in that way; karma tracks activity and popularity. Some users can build up a reputation for a specific type of content, but that feels different.

      Mastodon (haven't even really used it yet so just going on an outsider's understanding) enables both locality via servers (like the subreddit) as well as emphasizing identity/reputation (a la Twitter) so one could follow or otherwise tag certain users, allowing them to build a tracked and public reputation for quality journalism

  • 1123581321 3 years ago

    Most of the worthwhile content in my city’s sub are links to local journalists who are paid to do more than cursory research. Outside of food and apartment recommendations, a lot of the user-generated subreddit content is unreliable.

    I don’t doubt there are exceptions, and in subreddits for large cities, perhaps a few users are willing to do free in-depth journalism for those audiences. But I’ve looked at several other cities’ communities, mostly of small and medium size, and seen similar dynamics.

  • logicalmonster 3 years ago

    > and not just acting as advocates for one issue or another.

    I think one clear lesson of the last few years should be that every human being has their biases. Trying to provide unbiased and objectively accurate information about things that are in nature often very nuanced and subjective is a foolhardy endeavor. Even with the big technology firms trying to provide "independent fact checkers", there's no way to accurately gauge truth on social media without essentially picking one point-of-view and censoring other perspectives.

    Instead, taking into account human bias should be part of the system. Take ProjectVeritas as one example. I think that it's great that they're biased and argue their own point-of-view as long as their bias is known by people. That way you can take that into account when judging how likely something is to be true. I'd love it if there were more organizations like ProjectVeritas with their own biases who worked to expose corruption on issues they care about regardless of political perspective.

    IMO, the worst situation to be in for determining truth is the one we're in with the media now where we have journalists who are playacting at being unbiased who clearly have a point of view they push for.

    • throwawaysleep 3 years ago

      ProjectVeritas is about manufacturing traps, not any real kind of investigation.

      • joecool1029 3 years ago

        Good journalism should try to challenge or at least knock the subjects out of their comfort zone in order to slip from their script. I think that's the main complaint anyone paying attention has with large media organizations (that they are just retweeting/reblogging press releases and propaganda).

        Unfortunately Project Veritas goes further than just trying to challege their subjects and instead manufactures their own 'truth' out of manipulated b-roll. Sourced document of some of the claims they've manufactured: https://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/media/2018/projectve...

      • egberts1 3 years ago

        an essential tools to uncovering the truth.

        • rnk 3 years ago

          Project veritas is less than worthless. Anytime they have a story or video you can guarantee they took any info, including video, and mis-edited it to convey something that didn't happen. It's another grift to get money from people who pay for supposed false facts.

          • logicalmonster 3 years ago

            I probably shouldn't have mentioned ProjectVeritas because many people instantly go into "sports team" mode and ignore the main point, but I wanted to point out how understanding a media entity's bias is a good thing and I used them as an example of a media entity that has a well-understood bias.

            My greater point is that any media entity's work only conceivably presents a barrier to accurately understanding the world if you don't understand that they have a point of point of view they advocate for.

            If you know that ProjectVeritas has a point of view that they advocate for and lean towards one side of the political aisle or the other, then you can take that information into account when gauging the accuracy of their stories and the likelihood that they're not presenting the facts accurately. ProjectVeritas presents no danger to the world even if their stories are always 100% wrong precisely because their bias is well-known and understood; and the visceral reaction to them here very clearly indicates that their bias is well-known.

            The real risk comes when a media entity claims to be objective and unbiased when this should be understood to be impossible: no human being has zero bias.

            • acdha 3 years ago

              > If you know that ProjectVeritas has a point of view that they advocate for and lean towards one side of the political aisle or the other, then you can take that information into account when gauging the accuracy of their stories and the likelihood that they're not presenting the facts accurately. ProjectVeritas presents no danger to the world even if their stories are always 100% wrong precisely because their bias is well-known and understood

              That’s how it’s supposed to work but in practice it’s messier: not everyone is fully informed and following these stories, and context is often stripped as a story is promoted to other levels of media. The fairly large fraction of people who only read the headline probably don’t make it 6 paragraphs in where the reporter at a larger journal mentions the original source, or have the context to realize that the dueling quotes they’re presenting were all inspired by a dubious outrage-bait story rather than something real.

              • logicalmonster 3 years ago

                > not everyone is fully informed

                I don't want to seem mean-spirited to anybody, but the crowd of people who aren't capable of even understanding ProjectVeritas' bias is completely useless to any serious discussion or debate of ideas that advances the understanding of the world. So why should society harm the debate between the capable people by catering to the least common denominator that will never contribute anything of worth in this domain?

          • _-david-_ 3 years ago

            You do know they release the full unedited video as well...

    • hotpotamus 3 years ago

      If you consider ProjectVeritas as a positive example of investigation into corruption, who would you consider a poor example?

  • BrotherBisquick 3 years ago

    > What value does a local newspaper offer that, say, a subreddit for a city doesn't offer?

    I live in a city that's majority non-white and at least 50% conservative.

    The subreddit for my city is 99% white and hyper-leftist.

    At least local newspapers attempt to be unbiased.

  • bjourne 3 years ago

    Reddit is run by an American company. Thus, whatever is featured on the site needs the implicit approval of that company's owners. Thus, the content on Reddit needs to be palatable to that company's advertisers or else the company will lose money. This leads to homogenization and mainstream voices drowning out everything else. Small, independent, local newspapers are supposed to counteract that. It doesn't happen though since most local newspapers are owned by large conglomerates.

  • throwawaysleep 3 years ago

    > If that's the gap, how do we achieve this at a local level?

    You have to pay for it. It used to be that advertising space was limited, so it was paid for through that, but that revenue is gone and nobody wants to pay.

rcarr 3 years ago

A counterpoint to this is that local news is actually proving to be profitable (at least in the UK) on substack [1]. My guess would be that traditional local papers were too slow to adapt to the internet and also assumed that they would just be able to translate their business model to the internet with little adjustments. This often leads to awful, ad ridden hell holes like this monstrosity:

https://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/

Try using that site for 2 minutes without it crashing or you rage quitting from the constant rearranging of the page as it finally loads content. Even if you can use it, have a look at the quality of the articles. Case in point:

https://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/whats-on/shopping/range-c...

The ironic thing is that, whilst the publication is local, it is part of a national group that owns a large part of local media in the UK that all share the same underlying core site just with the names and posts changed to represent the local content. Subsequently a large part of the UK has to deal with this absolute shite for their local news. Hopefully Joshi Herrmann will continue to see success and his model will spread across the country.

[1] https://read.substack.com/p/the-active-voice-8-joshi-herrman...

prirun 3 years ago

If local newspapers focused on corruption in local government, locals would be more likely to subscribe IMO. But in my experience, they don't; they won't report on contentious issues in local government.

sfusato 3 years ago

> By 2025, a third of them will be gone. If you’re not convinced that’s a doomsday-level threat to democracy

I beg to differ. As we've seen in the last 3 years, the large majority of them were in bed with the government. Democracy? A better word would be plutocracy. Let them die.

throwawaysleep 3 years ago

A big part of them problem is few of those stories are relevant to the average middle class person, the kind of person who would pay for news. More than half of these stories are about criminals, prisons, and natives.

sourcecodeplz 3 years ago

They don't sell enough and thus are not profitable.

Maybe if they were run more like Non-profits than businesses they could survive.

Keyboard Shortcuts

j
Next item
k
Previous item
o / Enter
Open selected item
?
Show this help
Esc
Close modal / clear selection