— Some headlines, currently, in the New York Times opinion section:
I don’t know, man, I’m not a journalist or anything, but in the light of Trump’s nomination frenzy this week, isn’t there enough to dig in journalistically? Is defending this shit show really a good use of their time?
— The Guardian will finally stop posting on X, and using the word “finally” in this context is wholly appropriate.
In an announcement to readers, the news organisation said it considered the benefits of being on the platform formerly called Twitter were now outweighed by the negatives, citing the “often disturbing content” found on it.
[…]
The Guardian said content on the platform about which it had longstanding concerns included far-right conspiracy theories and racism. It added that the site’s coverage of the US presidential election had crystallised its decision.
Better late than never, they say. But it’s too late. If there were “longstanding concerns,” why didn’t they act sooner? By staying on X, along with many other major papers and despite the fact that the cited issues existed for years, they kept posting to and therefore legitimising X as a valid information source.
— Condé Nast is closing Pitchfork and folds its remains into douchebag magazine GQ. This is indeed an absolute travesty but it follows a familiar pattern. A niche publication becomes successful with a dedicated audience. Big publishing house acquires the publication to „develop the format.“ Big publishing house realises there are limits to the growth within the niche audience and that the revenue isn’t what they expected. Big publishing house expands the topics covered in the publication—here to include pop and rap coverage—but still the numbers aren’t satisfying for the suits. Big publishing house closes the publication. It’s an ongoing cycle of money destroying culture, unless the culture is Taylor Swift or Beyoncé.
— Less traffic is routed from social media to news sites, so news organisations are working on alternative ways to attract readers. This is a development I welcome. Social media sites becoming less relevant for distributing news, less relevant in general—forcing readers to curate their news diet instead of getting drenched by an algorithmically selected menu of divisive content—surely, that’s good step in the right direction.
— Tech journalist Casey Newton asked his readers how they want from coverage of developments in Artificial Intelligence. What people want is clear-headed journalism. Knowledgeable reporting of facts and current state of affairs and the people making decisions, and less punditry and little speculation.
— Journalists don’t understand Mastodon. I’m glad we’re discussing another variation of “media people don’t understand blogs.” I can’t wait for “Tooting isn’t tweeting” and “Can Mastodon users also be journalists?”