If this is bad, would it also be bad for NYT to film the same things and publish a piece about how bad the situation is, with ads?
This is not, and should not be, an important factor in journalistic reporting. Often, the most valuable stories are those which would never receive consent by the relevant parties.
> Addiction in general vs. the individual
I don't understand. We should treat the problem as a statistical one without a personal human element? Absolutely not. Plenty of reports abound on statistics, already. A garish front-line perspective could be exactly what saves some kid from walking down that path in the future and what motivates some community activists or politicians to effect meaningful changes in their community.
> We should treat the problem as a statistical one without a personal human element?
No, we shouldn't concentrate on specific people. This shouldn't be poverty porn. "There's an issue, here's an affected person who agreed to talk to us about it, here's more about the issue" - great personal element! "Look at this affected person, and this one, and this one, and this one, the end" - no, that's not reporting about the issue itself.
Absolutely we should focus on individuals. This isn't pornography (for pleasure). It's a crisis. And, just like Palestine or Ukraine or Darfur, it should be documented and individual's experiences should be broadcasted. Hiding the problem isn't going to fix anything. Treating it like a class thing isn't going to fix anything - this issue crosses race and class. It's a human problem and requires human-human interactions.
Starting the drug use - sure. But do you think the same of people who are already physically addicted continuing use? And does it matter for the problem itself?
> Absolutely we should focus on individuals.
How much can you achieve here by focusing on every single affected person individually -vs- knowing this is a city wide issue and actually trying to hit the distributors since they seem to be so obvious, people can just switch the corner they go to? (according to the article)
Yes, I think if you're neck deep in a fentanyl and tranq addiction you're making a choice to continue using. That's evidenced by those who chose to stop using. And, yes, assigning responsibility correctly is important.
Note that drug treatment programs almost always require patients to accept responsibility for their outcomes. That's not just empty posturing. That's crucial to solving the problem.
> How much can you achieve...
You'll accomplish much more positive change by focusing on individuals suffering from drug use (that includes non-users). If cracking down on distribution did anything to solve addiction then we still be living in Prohibition and drugs wouldn't be more popular, dangerous, and addictive than ever. Cracking down on distribution only increases inequality measures (look at Mexico today and also the results of applying the "zero tolerance" policy to crack cocaine distributors in the 80s - the African American community is still reeling from heavy-handed administration and enforcement) and accelerates the arms race.
There are some important differences related to consent and background info, but the high level criticism in TFA that "people are profiting by sharing imagery of fucked up drug users" is equally true of mainstream publications
It's important journalism to the extent that it disseminates information or raises awareness of important conditions or facts
To me it seems that the worst accusation you can level at a news org like NYT is reaching for sensationalism and lurid "entertainment" to get clicks.
But they are a (subjectively) trusted/credible news institution. There is an underlying mission and set of shared journalistic values behind what they do, not to mention an editorial process. Through these things there is at least a nod towards accountability.
TikTok creators are not credible or trusted in the same sense, and they are under no obligation to a larger mission or set of norms, self-imposed or otherwise. They just want followers. With content like this, it seems they're doing the inverse of the NYT - they're reaching for credibility by creating content with the appearance of journalism.
---
And to your point about consent, I'm sure there are people who did not or could not consent to their image being published. AFAIK there are no structures governing TikTok "journalism" that would prevent this sort of harm. For me, this is enough to totally disqualify this sort of thing as journalism.
Platforms don't advertise it and have created a totally absurd industry where the limits of Consumption has no impact on the limits of Production. So there is no journalism going on.
Content explodes and finite Attention fragments into smaller and smaller bits so Content Producers view counts stay up with ever diluting short lived impact.
Consumption is not being measured right. If the you get a single viewer who then goes and reads 50 other things you are really getting 1/50th of that view. Self serving content producers and platforms don't talk about it at all.
It's like watching home builders debating what they are building before the subprime meltdown.
> By the 2000s, so much information was being generated worldwide that only a small fraction (0.5% in 2015) of the digital data generated was being analyzed at all.
Information and its analysis is not equivalent to content and its consumption, nor can you extrapolate one from the other.
That you seem to use this as the sole basis for your conspiratorial findings that we're in a content bubble and "platforms don't advertise it" is unfortunate.
Journalism value lies more in surfacing data/info rather than analyzing it - an MRI tech might be able to observe and detect cancer before everyone else, but that doesn't mean they are qualified docs or cancer researchers. Or whatever they think needs to be highlighted really needs everyones attention. The platforms regularly waste everyone's time and energy.
Journos are in a similar position to the MRI tech and do call in experts to look at their data, but it all gets regularly drowned out by the info tsunami, plus experts usually need Time the more complex anything gets. The platforms profit from the expectation that what they promote, translates to action or solution instantly. And when it doesn't they don't indicate how much energy has been wasted.
The info flows have to change for more action and less unnecessary attention capture. The MRI techs are getting too much attention without an equivalent increase in lives saved.
Yes. Advertising, in which you pay someone to lie or exploit a fallacy (e.g. red wine associated with lower risk of cardiovascular disease), is the opposite of journalism. The idea that you should fund one with the other is frankly horrific.
If a TikTokker is trying to document this to get people help or change the situation, that's ... I don't want to say "good" but probably "acceptable".
If a TikTokker is simply filming "spectacle" of people who probably cannot give reasonable consent, that is very much unacceptable.
These are both true whether you replace "TikTok" with "Insta" or "NYTimes" or "WaPo".
(Apparently there's been a new law, you can be fined for up to 2 years in prison for the first case, when you obstruct first aid workers and take pictures of dead people: https://www.bussgeldkatalog.org/gaffer/ )
Anytime there is a "why is HN like [x]" you need to stop and remember that this is a newsfeed on a tech startup incubator, and that it caters to people with certain points of view, education, and experiences.
think about that, what those are, and then revisit your question; it's not rocket science.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/20/health/opioids-drug-consu...
The focus seems entirely different. It’s not about shock value.
In any case, turning aside from the NYTimes specifically, of course aesthetics and context matters! That’s what photojournalism is!
The camera only ever captures fragments of reality, and then the publisher will place that content in a completely different context (you scrolling through your phone). Headlines, editing, narration, captions, preview images, and simply where and how you find it - that all puts the raw data into a story, a media experience. The same raw video file can be edited to to inflame disgust or inspire empathy.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/07/health/fentanyl-xylazine-...
Andrew Callaghan does some interesting work that focuses on lurid topics but with unexpected sensitivity. In his recent piece on San Francisco street crime and drug addiction, there’s a subplot about a TikToker who is popular with conservative media for condemning and confronting street people. He is loathed by the social services and healthcare workers.
"Brooke Peder’s leg was amputated after an infection from a tranq wound bore into the bone. She hopes to save her arm, although she reluctantly injects tranq in it."
They are both relying on shock and disgust to make money. I agree that NYT is far more fact based and substantive, but the core problem people seem to have with the TikTokers is almost just as bad in traditional journalism.
Also yes I love Andrew Callahan, and the first scene of that video was shot 3 blocks from my office.
The core problem people have with TikTok spectacle is it is less factual and not substantive.
The article and many comments here express the sentiment that the problem is making money off these people without directly helping them. The very high level of what NYT does is the same, albeit with better norms and processes that are less likely to cause harm and more likely to lead to accurate reporting.
We were discussing the NYT and an article you chose. Not the Guardian article.
The Guardian article was less informative. It described the content of the TikTok videos in between the portions you quoted however.
> The article and many comments here express the sentiment that the problem is making money off these people without directly helping them.
This was 1 of several complaints in the Guardian article. And I saw 0 comments say this. 1 comment said all advertising supported journalism is horrific. 1 comment said earning money off others without consent is vile.
My point is that it's not the core problem people have with tiktok in this case. Currently every top level comment here that is critical of TikToker behavior is complaining about exploitation, not lack of factuality. The original article also does not complain about lack of factuality, primarily focusing on exploitation.
Since every top level comment here and all the articles shared about tiktok refer to exploitation and not factuality, it's not the case that "The core problem people have with TikTok spectacle is it is less factual and not substantive.", if by "people " you are referring to HN commenters or people interviewed by the guardian, or the authors of the guardian piece. NYT is silent on the issue since their piece was written months ago.
The context you chose was equating NYT and TikTok. People have more than 1 core problem with TikTok of course.
> My point is that it's not the core problem people have with tiktok in this case. Currently every top level comment here that is critical of TikToker behavior is complaining about exploitation, not lack of factuality.
The top level comments critical of TikTok spectacle were about consent mostly. And I reject considering top level comments only.
> the main focus is on how fucked up a small number of specific people are
So no, I feel like we're looking at a completely different article. I don't see that as the focus at all.