It used to be that the vast majority of media was controlled and shaped by very few people.
The internet is gradually changing that.
It's a pretty big deal. The internet is simultaneously an incredibly powerful publishing/distribution platform, and an incredibly powerful consumption channel.
So, take the title:
> I’m an Article About the Internet That You Repost on the Internet
It could be said, "I’m an Article About [Internet Consumption] That's [Published and Distributed on the Internet]"
Which suddenly comes across a lot less witty and clever.
Yeah, the internet is a big deal. People are going to keep talking about it. And the trivial noise? That was around before the internet; it's just no longer in the hands of a select few publishers/distributors.
It's not critical about publishing on the Internet. The article is about Internet publishers' obsessive infatuation about the meta aspects of Internet publishing. I think your reply is a good exhibit on that subject.
I wonder if Teddy Wayne could have requested that this article be posted without all of the Tweet/Like/etc at the top. The inclusion of these buttons both hurts the point that he's making while ironically explaining why online media has become such a vacuous echo chamber.
Note, for those that don't know, that this will appear in the print edition of the magazine that is on its way to mailboxes and newsstands everywhere, so maybe the point would be hurt less in print. Maybe it would be funnier in print too, although I kind of doubt that. Shouts & Murmurs is very rarely funny.
hee. I do wonder just how much innovation is being stifled in terms of time-wasting and demoralization by the hype-machine. I don't mind articles about apps or new techs, but I'm about getting my fill of the incessant stream of news about funding, VCs, i.e. the "business" of startups...and that's not to mention the umpteenth post about how your startup isn't lean enough if you don't validate your idea or do A/B testing.
I am reminded of a comment tree I participated in back on Reddit several years ago [1]. I guess at a certain size all organizations have to have a meta discussion about themselves.
True, especially the part about the need for great writing.
Unfortunately, re: your first point, that's a large audience, one which advertisers are happy to target. And I'm not sure good journalism was ever relevant to those with short attention spans or who don't read. However those folks have always been relevant to advertisers.
Advertisers are not going to save good journalism. Maybe good writers must do it, and maybe only for the love of writing.
I can't agree with you more than I do. Good writing and journalism is more important than ever but it is completely missing. Blogs are mostly crap, successful online news generally consists of fluff pieces and most actual news is repeated and retold to the point of being a muffled meme.
Page view driven journalism is taking us down a dark path. I would not be surprised if George Takei and Ashton Kutcher are the premier sources of online information for most people in 5 years. Good writing is not required for a large number of page views.
I really like that the low brow look-at-my-cute-cat culture is taking over. You see, culture should travel up too.
All this "hi-brow" stuff is just manipulation or rehashed manipulation and narrative control coming down from the even "higher brow" newspapers, research institutes and political organizations. Most people wouldn't give a crap about most of it if it wasn't for their petite bourgeouis, keeping up with the "smart" people desire for acceptance or "what should I worry about today that has absolutely no effect on my life?" news junkie syndrome.
And so here's a comment on the internet about the article on the internet that is about the articles on the internet that are reposted on the internet that was reposted on the internet.
this post has been brought to you by the court of King Caracticus and the letter 'j'
I don't think we need to get all defensive about this. Yes we overtweet, share, retweet, 'like', etc, and we love how self-aware we all are. Good point, Teddy Wayne. Now, what suggestion do you have as an alternative to offer?
I can't help but feel that the author could've saved himself the time and effort and just posted a link to the Wikipedia page for the "Tragedy of the Commons" instead.
29 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 79.6 ms ] threadThe internet is gradually changing that.
It's a pretty big deal. The internet is simultaneously an incredibly powerful publishing/distribution platform, and an incredibly powerful consumption channel.
So, take the title:
> I’m an Article About the Internet That You Repost on the Internet
It could be said, "I’m an Article About [Internet Consumption] That's [Published and Distributed on the Internet]"
Which suddenly comes across a lot less witty and clever.
Yeah, the internet is a big deal. People are going to keep talking about it. And the trivial noise? That was around before the internet; it's just no longer in the hands of a select few publishers/distributors.
Perhaps the self-referential pieces begin to reach past introspection? Here are some others:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-scientist/2010/sep... This is a news website article about a scientific finding
http://faultline.org/index.php/site/item/incendiary/ This is the title of a typical incendiary blog post
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtGSXMuWMR4 How To Report The News
> Just post me and pretend like you personally did something good. When’s the last time you volunteered or even gave money to a homeless person
Ideally, this would be a really cynical comment. Sadly, it is not.
>oh, Jesus, I once had dreams of being a Pulitzer-winning series about Congo. How did I end up on the bullshit-tech-story beat?
[1] http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/9j8vh/i_was_at_work_the...
http://consc.net/misc/moser.html
(It's been said before.)
The internet crushed distribution, but nowhere has it eliminated the demand for great writing. If anything, that need is greater now than ever.
Unfortunately, re: your first point, that's a large audience, one which advertisers are happy to target. And I'm not sure good journalism was ever relevant to those with short attention spans or who don't read. However those folks have always been relevant to advertisers.
Advertisers are not going to save good journalism. Maybe good writers must do it, and maybe only for the love of writing.
Cost of distribution: zilch.
Page view driven journalism is taking us down a dark path. I would not be surprised if George Takei and Ashton Kutcher are the premier sources of online information for most people in 5 years. Good writing is not required for a large number of page views.
Most of my friends and family can't distinguish between a real website/blog and an SEO, ad-driven site with computer generated text.
All this "hi-brow" stuff is just manipulation or rehashed manipulation and narrative control coming down from the even "higher brow" newspapers, research institutes and political organizations. Most people wouldn't give a crap about most of it if it wasn't for their petite bourgeouis, keeping up with the "smart" people desire for acceptance or "what should I worry about today that has absolutely no effect on my life?" news junkie syndrome.
this post has been brought to you by the court of King Caracticus and the letter 'j'
Ah, I thought so.
Here, I'll help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons