Huffington Post founder Arianna Huffington to step down
bbc.co.uk
bbc.co.uk
This might sound profound but it doesn't actually make any sense.
I find partisan media on all sides valuable to read because the people writing it have different motivations than your typical mainstream journalists. You have to use your judgement and read everything with a grain of salt, obviously, but viewing the news from a variety of perspectives is valuable.
On another note does anyone know any good Indian journalists? Or is the term an oxymoron :P ?
Google harder.
All over. The trick is to find them.
Our world is so much better because newspapers matter less and so much worse because cable matters more.
I seem to have difficulty finding them
No thanks.
Definitely a case where it is a far better reading experience in physical magazine form than electronic. You can peek ahead to see where the opposing view or alternative view is going. The format is good for short attention people like myself
From the Pentagon Papers to Watergate to Edward Snowden to the current water crisis in Flint, newspapers have broken stories that've benefitted the public. If any of you watch the news, a majority of stories are recycled from original newspaper reporting. While papers' circulations are dwindling, they are still making a difference online.
If no one is keeping our elected officials accountable, who will? Surely not Dave and Kelly of News Channel whatever.
We do not have to rely on the newspaper to be the 1st ordinal of "news"
I can be a news seeker much easier now
Newspapers are important just less so than in 1976, say
It's like how cell phones put a camera in everyone's pocket so now when we have natural disasters or a 10 car pileup we get photos, but about 3/4 are idiotic selfies.
I grew up wanting to be the next (accidental) Abraham Zapruder.(0) to be the source, the Deep Throat so to speak, of something so important -to be validated by the news.
Newspapers are far from being a distribution channel, and to think of them that way is as reductive as thinking of social networks as address books.
Newspapers are organizations that are first and foremost investigative, backed up by quality control, editorial, and research organizations. If you replace this with a smartphone and shift the delivery model out from a newspaper, then the role of being a fact-checker, editor, researcher, and expert falls on the reader. This is a bad idea, not only because it creates more work for the reader, but also because it increase the extent to which personal bias of the readership can increase the incorrect interpretation of facts.
Obviously, no newspaper is a perfect example of this ideal, but they are a great deal further along the curve than almost any individual. As a result, they act as a force against filter bubbles by promoting a whole set of stories and ideas that force people to participate more broadly with real world events and ideas. The mere fact that we worry so much about editorial bias in newspapers is a symptom of the importance that they play in guiding their consumers. The solution is not self-guidance and self-filtering and self research in order to wade through a sea of unqualified, unedited BS.
Furthermore, by being a news seeker, you are admitting that you are still seeking to know what is out there? Is there a particular reason you do not want to consume news through a qualified source? If you want to read the panama papers by yourself then you will likely do that to exclusion of all other reading for a period of days to weeks, and you will need to spend twice that doing research to understand what it means. If you go through a newspaper, they do that work for you.
Newspapers are not broken in any fundamental way. The only reason that this discussion is even happening is that news was traditionally funded by advertising, and that advertising is a shifting business, dragging news along with it. Discussions that center on the decline of newspapers without acknowledging that the shift in advertising revenue is really the problem ignores something very important: that the business of generating news is not at fault, the business of paying for it is. That is the real discussion worth having.
Newspapers aren't just about news. I may choose to consume one investigative report every quarter, say, and am grateful there's a qualified source . Weather travel planning, for sale, advertisements, and government notifications I no longer need a newspaper to get.
We used to buy the Sunday Times just for the Travel section to look at advertisements. We're better off now that we have the internet to find deals
Disagree. Just last week John Oliver showed David Simon talking about a golden age of corruption when journalists stop going to town hall meetings and local political events.
The internet archive has many recordings: https://archive.org/search.php?query=edward%20r%20murrow
edit : typos
And please don't give me this self-introspection crap.
They are on 'fake news' shows doing comedy.
These days only Arnab Goswami comes to mind. In the past there were a lot of upstanding journalists like Arun Shourie, Kuldip Nayar, Lala Jagat Narayan etc.
Even worse, he made sure to punish and taunt the individual. As a result the individual had a lot of rather stressful life events, was humiliated on CNN, etc. For all of this: Adrian Chen claimed a moral victory.
-----
From my understanding, this was SOP at Gawker, and that is what lead them to have some very powerful enemies.
"And then there’s Michael Huffington, the Texas tycoon who moved to Santa Barbara in the early ’90s so he could run for Congress. Huffington ingratiated himself with S.B. movers and shakers by writing $10,000 checks to all their favorite charities. But he and his famous wife, Arianna, who has since morphed into a famous left-wing media mogulista, were so late paying their bills that many of Santa Barbara’s high-end foodie establishments cut off credit to the high-octane couple. As he would later — when news stories broke that he’d hired an illegal immigrant to care for his children — Huffington blamed his wife."
It's a blog ...
Many of the company's significant initiatives seemed to come out in unpredictable bursts from the brain trust that formed Arianna's staff. The nominal product and engineering leadership was charged with implementing these initiatives, but subject to rapidly changing priorities. A lot of work was launched under time pressure and then scrapped shortly afterward.
To be fair, a lot of the instincts behind those priorities were pretty ambitious and forward-thinking. But totally disconnected from the work of implementation. There's an opportunity to retain the positive aspects that kept HuffPost on the cutting edge (at least in some ways) and reform the churn and top-down approach. Or maybe the road is clear for the company to be fully assimilated into the Verizonscape.
In scenario 1) the company provides resources (time, opportunities for exercise, dietary advantages like coupons) and hopes for a good outcome. They offer incentives.
In scenario 2) the company jacks up everybody's rates and offers "Discounts" to people who willingly submit to having their biological markers reviewed and stored in a database, and to be "under the thumb" of "Coaches" who call to "check in" on progress. The only incentive is fiscal, and the company gets to off-load a bit more of its financial obligation...and, in the US where wages are stagnant, it punishes working class folks.
There's a lot of feel-good talk about option 1) but in my experience Top-Down leadership highly prefers option 2) and that bothers me. Mostly because BMI is often bullshit and sharing PHI is also bullshit to get around some HIPAA protections.
Now with lots of cancer survivors on the books, insurance companies want to recoup the actuarial risk by increasing premiums on the corporate employer, and the corporate employer wants to find ways to kick the cost downward so, you know, shareholders will be happy. I do sincerely believe this is the way it works in the US. I do not like it.
It also potentially turns into an environment where you have to "perform wellness" to keep your job. As soon as there are hints of unhappiness or dissent your job is at risk. Not only do you have to turn up at the office when you have minor flu-like symptoms, you have to try your best to hide them.
:^) indicates that a joke is being made. It's quite similar to TwitchTV's Kappa, if you know about that.
Nothing to do with huffpost tho. Kappa