• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Has the internet regressed reporting of news?

near

Gold Member
I grew up in a household that read the daily newspaper, and tuned in for morning and evening news broadcasts. This was the optimal way of staying informed on current events. We've obviously advanced in technology and now have immediate access to significantly more resources to stay informed. While this is obviously playing its part in advancing our civilisation to varying degrees, I can't help but feel that underneath the surface of it all, it's become problematic.

When our sources for news were limited, it did feel like there was an importance or an emphasis on outlets existing as a public service, that would inform and act in the public's best interest. But with the growth of the internet, and more people having access to broadband infrastructure, the most reputable newspapers and broadcasters have struggled to adapt fast enough. A sharp decline in newspaper titles, and the axing of journalists as a result, led to more online news publications that are forced to compromise on what to report as revenue streams now demand clickbait headlines to remain sustainable. The quality of editorials has suffered consequentially. While the options for similar types of outlets have grown and saturated the market. Then, to compound the issue, social media has allowed the layman to inform and share news. While this has its benefits, without proper moderation and context, this sort of reporting can only spread misinformation.

Fake news and propaganda has always been present in its own spectrum, it never felt more apparent than it does now. Is there a direct correlation with the rise of independent media journalists? I've been thinking about this a lot lately, the more I think about it, the more it worries me. It is concerning that with the current climate of reporting, and AI tools becoming widely available, will we even be able to draw a distinction between truth and falsehood? In a time when we have perhaps the best tools ever for information gathering and distribution, is it even providing a beneficial service any more? When there have been countless occasions of false reporting, contradictions and arguably deliberate misinformation. Integrity is inevitably questioned.

It was a simpler time before the internet in terms of digesting news. I know I've covered a variety of different points that can be categorised into their own topics, so I apologise if this has come across a little incoherent. This is a thread largely about how I feel technology is sort of doing a disservice to news reporting. It isn't so much about the lack of verifiable and resourceful news available on the internet.

So, what are your thoughts? AI is starting to make everything look real, how should we as a society get this under control and regulated before it is abused by media outlets? What are your thoughts on independent media journalists? What are the most reputable and reliable sources for news? Do you miss the old days of consuming news? Do you even care? Am I getting old? Do you even read? lol

Disclaimer: This thread is NOT about politics, so please refrain from discussing that here.
 

killatopak

Member
I think the main difference from my perspective when I was young is that news are now more globalized.
With it comes conflicting views with respect to culture, nationalism and belief.

Due to the nature of being global, news outlets scramble out their information without further verification just to be the first one out since that's usually where majority views concentrate.

Since misinformation is a rampant, independept news became a thing and with it, it's fair share of downsides. It can be honest errors or actual intentional fake news. The only reason independent news are even entertained is because official news outlets can't be trusted to be accurate anymore. Independent ones just realized shit can be monetized due to the rise of social media. With money, comes temptation.

To he honest, I don't really know if it's actually that way. It sure feels that way though.
 
Anybody can report on anything these days and call it meaningful reporting. Lots of these cunts base whole articles on random users of twitter mostly "Lots of users in uproar over Diablo 4 changes" Shit like that is bottom of the barrel stuff.
I thought this was in relation to gaming news but I feel it still applies universally.
 
Last edited:

Meicyn

Gold Member
The internet has conditioned folks to not want to pay for news, and we’re seeing the inevitable result. When ad revenue drives the business, you incentivize clicks over quality. Everyone says they want real news, but most folks aren’t actually interested in it. They seek out gossip, celebrity bullshit, and other clickbait.

I pay for Apple News and curate what shows up, much like how I curate Reddit or Twitter. Want proper news? You’re going to need to open your wallet, because it ain’t free.
 

Ownage

Member
The open forum (for all) of the Internet has made it more difficult to identify accurate news and information. In a given context, not all broadcasts and opinions should be treated as equal.
 
Last edited:

near

Gold Member
Anybody can report on anything these days and call it meaningful reporting. Lots of these cunts base whole articles on random users of twitter mostly "Lots of users in uproar over Diablo 4 changes" Shit like that is bottom of the barrel stuff.
I thought this was in relation to gaming news but I feel it still applies universally.
I feel like game journalism has always been awful. But I held current event news to a higher standard, which is why I thought it would be an interesting topic to gauge what sort of discourse it would generate.
 
It depends on your algorithm.

Algorithms kill good journalism more than anything else, by enticing you with clickbait (that has caught more mass attention) than good, well written news. Once you start engaging with the clickbait, it will feed you more and more clickbait since it thinks that's what you want. Then it will figure out if you like clickbait that upsets you more often or clickbait that makes you happy more often, based on what your engagement is. It will keep going with this until it finds the perfect loop for you.

The algorithm has gotten so good that you have actual people attempting to take advantage of it by funneling you down a path. An example: A lot of OP thread creators here value engagement so they will post rumors, spicy news, or generally upsetting content to get you guys to comment and engage. Sometimes what you end up with is a thread full of upset posters arguing with each other, and that is deemed a success.

When it comes to journalism everyone is trying to blame the individual, but the individuals are the result, not the cause.
 

thefool

Member
We went from media reporting facts to media reporting how you should think about a subject. Naturally it generated a dissonance with audiences.
Internet democratized access to information.
 
Last edited:

Mistake

Member
I wouldn't really say news used to be "better." It just had less competition and people had less ways to find information. A lot of the problems you see today still existed before, but weren't as publicized
 
Last edited:

Soltype

Member
I feel like we're in a horseshoe of Internet credibility. When the internet was in its infancy I never fully trusted anything on it, but over time it appeared to get somewhat more credible, now I feel it's back to where it was 30 years ago in believability.
 

6502

Member
One annoying feature is previously respectable outlets like BBC news website turning their content increasingly towards lazy filler and quoting random tweets from the public instead of actually investigating things and getting sources close to the story.

Plus how many times are they going to do the "women make fortune on onlyfans" stories? It is like someone has an account they need to justify claiming on expenses.
 

jufonuk

not tag worthy
One annoying feature is previously respectable outlets like BBC news website turning their content increasingly towards lazy filler and quoting random tweets from the public instead of actually investigating things and getting sources close to the story.

Plus how many times are they going to do the "women make fortune on onlyfans" stories? It is like someone has an account they need to justify claiming on expenses.
I don’t like the way they are doing this and I doubt those inside the bbc do. They just need to attract eyes to them. To justify the TV licence.
 
One aspect is that news is now personalized. It used to be that everyone got their news from the same three TV channels, or the same newspaper. The public had a shared set of facts to openly discuss. Now, news is sent, customized, to each person's private device. Everyone not only has their own set of facts, but we often can't even know the facts another person is using as a guideline.
 
Last edited:

6502

Member
I don’t like the way they are doing this and I doubt those inside the bbc do. They just need to attract eyes to them. To justify the TV licence.
Yes I suspect it has to do with cost cutting. The tv news channel is a shadow of its former self too. Journalism costs money, but for UK bbc was a huge part of our soft power with news and the world service, it should have been protected.
 

ÆMNE22A!C

NO PAIN TRANCE CONTINUE
How is that even a question? 95% fake news and clickbait. Media outlets are the internets biggest joke.

Correct. Call me a conspiracy nut, which most of GAF already thinks lmao but if our "offical" narrative of our "real" history is suppressed than it's a no brainer to extrapolate that to the "news" in multiple forms. Not to say everything is false but it sure isn't what it pretends to be imvho.
 
"The News" as an institution has obviously declined. "Journalism" as a discipline has obviously declined. The ratio of "Fake News" to "Real News" has obviously increased.

There's still probably more real news out there compared to what we had in the past it's just impossible to sift through. So pick a narrative you like and find the news that fits!

With AI it's going to get a whole lot worse before it gets any better (spoiler it probably won't ever get better)
 
Last edited:

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
The internet has conditioned folks to not want to pay for news, and we’re seeing the inevitable result. When ad revenue drives the business, you incentivize clicks over quality. Everyone says they want real news, but most folks aren’t actually interested in it. They seek out gossip, celebrity bullshit, and other clickbait.

I pay for Apple News and curate what shows up, much like how I curate Reddit or Twitter. Want proper news? You’re going to need to open your wallet, because it ain’t free.
Yup.

In life, most people will trend to low cost or free shit even if the quality isnt great. It takes a lot of marketing or really outstanding quality to make people gravitate to the higher end stuff even if it's still pretty affordable.

I'm not talking cars or houses or expensive things like that. Category sales for many product lines will show the cheapest products (often the store brand) will right up there or even first place in units sold even if the quality isn't great. People would rather save 50 cents of $1 on a bag of shit cookies than pay a bit more and get higher quality stuff. People would rather save $2 on crap napkins or paper towels than buy the better brand. News is pretty commoditized whether it's true facts or dumb ass opinions or false news. It's one of those product lines that's more like "I dont give a shit... as long as it's free or cheap it's good enough".

And it makes sense as its logical for things that dont change someones life for people not to put a lot of emphasis or money into it.

But you'll notice for things like health and beauty or medicine or mom or dad sinking money into renovating their home, people often gun for the big brand expensive stuff. Suddenly it takes them forever to pick a bathroom vanity and not give a shit if it's $1000. In those categories, the store brands do lousy because people trust big corporations for health and well being and everyday living stuff. But for junky stuff, people dont give a shit and trend down to bottom quality at low prices.
 
Last edited:
Today's reminder

1Qb8PgI.png
 

Laptop1991

Member
Yes, the mainstream especially, i no longer trust their content, they should report all news without bias but you can quite clearly see hear and read bias everywhere or not reporting certain events at all, i can't take the mainstream seriously anymore, i trust smaller outlets and places like Rumble and Youtube more now, that's just sad imo, and trust is hard to win back.
 

12Goblins

Lil’ Gobbie
Zzz this topic annoys me. People are so quick to blame the media for this but it's ultimately just a reflection of themselves. You could have the most reputable objective and neutral coverage of something, and nobody but a handful of critically minded individuals would read it before it goes out of business, and that's what happened over the years. Fox news and CNN only have one business model: it sells by giving you what you want. NYT has been desperately trying to stay in business for years, and to do so has given in to giving people the trash they so desperately seek. You want to confirm your world view, You want to project your agenda, and You are to blame.
 
Last edited:

Oner

Member
As an older guy...what I can get away with stating on this forum without getting banned is this ~ don't believe what Legacy Media says at face value (ALL OF IT: LEFT OR RIGHT). Do your own research on the complete subject. Context has been utterly destroyed, even more so for those with short attention spans these days. If you don't do your due diligence on ANY topic and only go off headlines then you are not informed properly. Don't be sheep/lemmings and definitely separate your feelings from facts. Get your information from direct & alternate sources NOT what a paid talking head reads off a prompter about what someone else said...that's a start.
 

StueyDuck

Member
It's less about the internet and more about commercialism and marketing that ruins the news.

The moment someone is "sponsoring" the news is the second loses its core principle. That's why news papers were really the only time you'd read real journalism or see real reporting.

The internet just essentially caused a loop where we had a brief period of independent journalists trying to Kickstart the industry but by now in 2024 it's literally impossible to find an unbiased source of media. Everything and everyone is monetized, and to add insult to injury we now have foreign powers like China in charge of the news most the people see with its tiktok nonsense for kids. It's more about navigating all the bias to try find the truth in the middle.

Which is just work, considering most of us already work our time away we don't really want to spend extra time working for news, so now we've been separated into idiots that believe anything any organisation says and tired people who just can't find the time.
 
Top Bottom