Hacker News Reader

Comment by mtgp1000 | Hacker News Reader

I think what you're saying about reduced barriers to entry has lowered the standard of all popular media.

It used to be expensive to publish anything - especially the further back in time you go. So classics for example typically represent particularly bright writers, as having something published before the printing press, and widely disseminated, was simply unlikely to happen.

But today anyone can create an account on YouTube or stream on twitch and it doesn't matter if the content is of any particular quality or veracity, so long as the common man sees what he wants to see.

I think there's a major secondary effect, in that now that we are surrounded by low quality media, the average person's ability to recognize merit in general is lessened.

View on HN

The secondary effect you mention is absolutely the case. There is unlimited media and unlimited platforms on which to consume it. "Content" is truly a commodity now. I would like to try to make watching movies/tv a special thing again for myself, as opposed to little more than background noise. I think this will require careful curation and research, rather than just trusting an algorithm.

Yes, there is unlimited media and content, but the thing is that most of this content is either total crap, or polished content that was too much optimized for the median viewer. There is great, non-polished but authentic content for every niche, but it is very, very difficult to find it. Such content is not a commodity, but unfortunately, it seems that the average content is good enough for the average viewer...

I don't quite follow - if low quality media is everywhere, doesn't high quality media stand out?

Perhaps you're saying that so much low quality media drowns out the high quality media - such that it can't be found. The ratio is off, right?

if low quality media is everywhere, doesn't high quality media stand out?

Because there is so much low-quality content, it's become nearly impossible to find the high-quality content. Needles in haystacks.

Well, yes - that's my second sentence.

>if low quality media is everywhere, doesn't high quality media stand out?

You would think so, but more often than not, most people don't want high quality. What happens is that the media that panders to the lowest common denominator stands out the most, since that what the majority focus on.

The psychology of the "hot take" on twitter is a prime example of this. Is it less friction to read a 3 page blog post that critically analyzes a subject and takes into account different viewpoints that all have merit, or to read someone's 280 character reaction?

I am guilty myself, I often find myself jumping to the comments section even here on HN to understand what people are taking away from an article without even finishing it.

And that's where we need more journalitic (does that word exist?) writing. Even by non-journalists, I mean.

Make a long form content, start with the most important information in the first paragraph, and give more and more developments in the following paragraphs. Someone who thrives for short content will be happy with the first paragraph. Someone who want to delve into the details will ready each and every word. Heck, your first paragraph could even be a tweet containing a link to the long form.

This is clickbait taken backwards. You will get very few clicks as you already delivered the main information for free, but those who clicked will be there for a good reason.

It stands out, but it's so far away from you when you search for it, that it's below the horizon...

You can't determine the quality of media without consuming it. So the whole Akerloff "market for lemons" process applies: low quality cheap content dominates.

I think what you're saying about reduced barriers to entry has lowered the standard of all popular media.

You're more right than you know.

When there were only a handful of television channels, the content was higher quality than what we have now.

When there were only a couple of dozen cable channels, the content was higher quality than the endless reruns we have now.

When publishing a book went through the big publishing houses, the quality of what was available was higher than it is now where anyone can self-publish and pretend to be an expert.

See also: radio.

Content can only be created so fast. There are only so many talented content creators out there. While the number of media channels has exploded, the number of good content creators has not kept pace. Keep adding paint thinner, and eventually you can see through the paint.

The internet was supposed to give everyone an equal voice. All it ended up doing is elevating the drek and nutjobs to have equal footing with people who know what they're doing and what they're talking about. The quality is drowned out by the tidal wave of low-grade content.

> When there were only a handful of television channels, the content was higher quality than what we have now.

As someone who watched TV in the 1970s, before cable was a thing, I have to disagree here. I think we look back today and see "MASH" and "Columbo" still holding up great after 40+ years and think of it as representative. But nearly all TV was formulaic dreck back then, just like it is now. And even if the average quality level is worse now (which I'm not convinced is the case, but let's assume) the quantity is much higher and there's a large amount of really good stuff to choose from on the right side of the bell curve.

It's true that content can only be created so fast, but it can also only be consumed so fast. Once you have access to enough high-quality content to fill all the spare time you want to spend watching TV or reading or gaming or whatever, having more of it to choose from doesn't improve your experience much.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com