Ruling at the below link, because apparently every US news reporter is allergic to actually providing source docs in court cases . . .
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.32...
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.32...
Legacy media really sucks.
Reuters is legacy media, hence why I mentioned legacy media.
Like basically any rocket attack I assume happened in like 2006 and between completely different belligerents than whatever a post claims at this point
A podcast doesn't include any video data. How could it show a video?
It annoys me too but I'm young enough to tolerate the kids on my lawn...
Additionally there are far more genres of podcast than one or two talking heads. I wouldn’t call a Dungeons and Dragons podcast a talk show, video or audio.
That's fine with me. In that case, what's the difference between a "video podcast" and a "show"?
> A video podcast is distributed over RSS like any other podcast, unlike a talk show which is distributed via television.
Both of these are obviously false; podcasts need not be distributed by RSS and talk shows need not be distributed by television. Most obviously, radio is well known for the number of talk shows that are distributed over it. Next, podcasts tend to be distributed by providing download links on a web page. Then, talk shows are defined by their content and are distributed via any and all video channels; here's one I follow on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUUc-rp7o3g
That particular video involves asking three guests to discuss the differences between chopsticks in each of their home countries. What would you call it?
I find that most people who criticize people who criticize legacy media are angry that they don't meet their own political leanings.
Depends, the tabloids are really good at providing videos or photos from outside or pull them in so you can watch them on their site.
The more "high-end" the media, the less likely their are to provide you with external material, in my experience.
One they never provide sources. Not just their sources but sources behind figures or statements of truth.
Two it's hard to find articles that highlight different points than the leading article on the topic.
These days most articles have one of two sources:
* rewritten from a single prime news reporting source that did the hard yards,
* copied near verbatim from an official Press Release and|or Advertorial Press Material.
The second is the real bane of modern "news" sourcing - eg: straight up disguised advertising- a mega shopping chain pays a network to insert "news" pieces about fighting back against inflation savings that "local" stores are offering up to "stick it to the big guys" and other such template garbage. Perhaps worse; the undeclared "vested interest" news that comes from (say) a mining or energy companies Press Release.
More and more it's hard to find any truly independant journalism (because of cost cutting), and near impossible to find multiple sources and viewpoints.
One answer is for more citizens to become "press aware" and start to distribute their own press kit releases on local issues to spread the side of events that they want aired. That still faces the counter pressure of actual advertisers that spend with networks that would rather see their take get the airtime.
I'm fairly sure that the #1 source of news articles, social media posts, etc, probably by far is "native advertising" aka hidden advertising (this is actually illegal in some countries) aka PR articles posted as if from the news source.
https://paulgraham.com/submarine.html
Once you see it, you can't unsee it.
Other than the fact that text is sequential I imposed no ranking, these are the two major sources.
> "native advertising" aka hidden advertising
aka submarine news, aka Advertorial Press Material (as I called it above)
Why do the media keep running stories saying suits are back? Because PR firms tell them to.
Either way it's "free" professionally prepared copy that costs nothing in paid reporter time and sometimes comes with a carrot (paid advertisement inches), sometimes with a stick (we're thinking of withdrawing | changing contracts, but we have this copy we'd like to see run).
Never link outside your garden.
Example: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/02/us/politics/trump-jan-6-c...
Enshittification (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enshittification) is getting so bad, I'd be willing to pay for sites that actually work. So far, paywall offers are just to remove external ads and that's only part of what I want. The rest of what I want is for the fucking site to actually work. For example, both Google and Amazon search have been seriously degraded and de-featured in recent years and it's been done very intentionally and systematically to optimize for their ad or sales revenue.
I suspect this degradation has crept deeper into their stacks than just at the top layer where it could be easily turned off with a flag and sold as a paywall upgrade.
> For some weird reason, outlinks are to be avoided
To me fair, news is probably pretty hard to measure. Since the real value is in quality. People want information, quickly available, but accurate and easily readable. I mean isn't a big function of the news to explain complex topics more simply? I don't think there are any half way decent metrics for quality in really any domain.
People seem to frequently forget that your measurement is always a proxy. A proxy for what? That's for you to decide. But you can't ever measure anything directly.
It's sadly common even in data science but the biggest offenders I see are business people. You can't use metrics without understanding what they're for otherwise you'll just enshitify your product. Be that number of clicks, time on page/site, number of academic citations, whatever. They're meaningless at face value. A good example is time on site. That's great for social media like YouTube where it generally correlates strongly to "using the website for what the website does" but even then it can be "scrolled for 20 minutes looking for something to watch, gave up. But on a news site, no one fucking cares about that. Your job is to provide information, so time on {page, site} might actually be a negative because it doesn't necessarily mean people are reading that whole time but they might be struggling to find the information they are looking for. A confusing UX also optimizes time on site.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law(Markets can work with monopolies, even efficiently, but it's the problem of benevolent dictators. They're never benevolent and eventually abuse their power. Competition is good for everyone involved because a stagnating monopoly is just one overtaken by bureaucrats who don't know how to make money, i.e. it is already dying)