Hacker News Reader

>The author assumes that "the media" are some homogenous lump that all thinks the same and pumps out the same content.

By and large it is https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_of_media_owner...

Reminds me of this Sinclair compilation video: https://youtu.be/hWLjYJ4BzvI

>The author assumes that "the media" are some homogenous lump that all thinks the same and pumps out the same content.

There are zillion examples of this becoming more and more true. Increasingly often, articles are written to support shared meta-narratives, regardless of what's happening in reality. From just last few days, here is NYT and CNN drawing completely idiotic parallels between r/wallstreetbets and MAGA:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/29/style/gamestop-wallstreet...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/savingandinvesting/gamestop-...

This is borderline self-parody. The fact that several major outlets wrote something of this sort should raise red flags for anyone paying attention.

>The author assumes that "the media" are some homogenous lump that all thinks the same and pumps out the same content.

Well in the eyes of the "advertiser" - the money - they are indeed a homogeneous lump that sell their advertising inventory to some DSP... while Facebook/Google have extremely valuable inventory due to the data granularity.

And you might say, "oh this has nothing to do with advertising!". Let me tell you that I've witnessed the inner workings of large old media protecting some advertisers, as well as pilling up to attack tech giants.

Media and Silicon Valley are at war since the share of media budgets accelerated towards tech giants, departing from "old" media. The media started to feel the urge to compete with user generated content when faced with this reality that reflected as lower CPMs for their inventory, and started to pump content (news/opinions/etc) - the "truth" became irrelevant as long as they are the first, or have the snappier header to grab clicks.

The media is as much to blame for the status quo as any other player.

> Let me tell you that I've witnessed the inner workings of large old media protecting some advertisers

I have too, but I'll say it's very rare and built-in mechanisms of good journalistic institutions tend to prevent it.

Yes, maybe it was a mistake of mine mentioning it so lightly - you're absolutely right!

Specially on protecting advertisers, it's very rare (sometimes even if advertiser pulls a tantrum and strips off budget).

But on the subject of attacking tech giants, if find that to be recurrent - and in the "old media" defense most of it is well deserved. Still, they pile up with some enjoyment.

With respect to "mainstream" media, it has become demonstrably more homogenized. If nothing else, because of the media conglomerates that have become increasingly dominant.

By and large, they're also correct that mainstream media is moving to the left.

This is clear, if you follow media bias analyses from non-partisan sites like: https://www.allsides.com/unbiased-balanced-news

There are definitely things I didn't delve into.

A more nuanced take would have engaged more with the various segments of the media. On the other hand, there's a great sociological article by Kieran Healy called Fuck Nuance. As he writes:

"Nuance is not a virtue of good sociological theory. Although often demanded and superficially attractive, nuance inhibits the abstraction on which good theory depends. I describe three “nuance traps” common in sociology and show why they should be avoided on grounds of principle, aesthetics, and strategy. The argument is made without prejudice to the substantive heterogeneity of the discipline."

I believe that models at different levels of abstraction have value and that sometimes too high a resolution picture obscures useful patterns at a higher level. In this case, I think there are things that can be usefully be said about the mainstream media - in particular that there is something of a culture clash, that many journalists are struggling or went through a period of struggle to get where they are and that there is some level of jealousy towards overpaid programmers straight out of college.

> that's a broad sweep. The demographic is changing and the various properties are changing to reflect that. Granted, there is some leeway in a media organisation pushing it's audience to one side of a debate or other. However it needs the audience to go with it. However there is no evidence provided that this is the case.

What "demographic?"

I've posted before on the weird relationship between neoliberal Democrats and big tech (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25846361). To make things short, the biggest flaw in his take was that things were not always like this, there was a time when the Democratic establishment were absolutely having a blatant love affair with SV tech (Remember Obama's campaign and how liberal media applauded his "progressive" use of Facebook and data analysis?). You have to look at the reasons why that relationship changed, and then everything becomes incredibly straightforward.

Part of this is adopting a new narrative meant that they could write more stories, part of this is that some of the societal issues have become increasingly obvious, but I also believe that part of this tech's role in collapsing the media and inter-elite competition as well. So it's multi-faceted.

> "The media is becoming more progressive"

This jumped out at me too. It's interesting that some of the reflection on the NYTimes internal changes, specifically, is credited to people coming from "tech companies".

> The insurrectionists, meanwhile, had often come from digital outlets or tech companies or advocacy groups and could imagine leaving the place at any time.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/11/inside-the-new-york-...

"The only way to understand the Press is to remember that they pander to their readers' prejudices."

-Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1986

Technology might have advanced a zillion times in the past 35 years. Media and the Press have remained largely the same.

It's interesting that the author (And many Americans!) realize that the media is becoming more homogenized, and that that's a problem, but come to the wrong conclusion that it's getting more progressive, when these large media conglomerates are mostly very conservative.

Explain to me what's conservative about calling protests "peaceful" while literally showing a city on fire in the background?

Can you clarify? This seems plainly untrue under any conventional definition of "very conservative". Archetypal "very conservative" positions might be opposition to minimum wage increases or support for unrestricted gun ownership, and it's pretty hard to argue that e.g. CNN and the New York Times embrace those positions.

“Conservative” in the sense that they want to preserve existing power structures, not that they don’t want to jump on new trends. Look at the mainstream coverage of the GME fiasco, for example. That’s why they love “progressive” ideas that keep everything the same except for skin colour.

Without getting into GME, that's largely a fair assessment. I don't think that contradicts the author, though; when Americans say "progressive", they typically mean something like "aligned with the trends and preferences of people within the Democratic Party". Nobody would call e.g. Joe Biden "very conservative", despite his interest in preserving (and presence at the top of) existing power structures.

It’s just an aesthetic. It doesn’t really matter

The large media conglomerates are only conservative to the extent that they love money and so share some values with fiscal conservatives.

But they're happy to push whatever cultural changes boost the bottom line, regardless of whether or not they're conservative.

>The author assumes that "the media" are some homogenous lump that all thinks the same and pumps out the same content.

If only you knew how bad things really are.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JournoList