Huffington Post and Drudge are among 'news parasites', says Washington Post man

[Infohawk]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/sep/23/huffington-post-parasites-washington-post

Leonard Downie Jr, the former executive editor of the Washington Post, has attacked online news aggregators including the Huffington Post as "parasites living off journalism produced by others".

Delivering the James Cameron Memorial Lecture at London's City University last night, Downie criticised online aggregators for filling their websites "with news, opinion, features, photographs and video that they continuously collect – some would say steal – from other national and local news sites".

I sort of see this guy's point. Sites like Drudge and the Huffington Post seem to mostly siphon attention away from news organizations that do more investigation. On the other hand, Drudge seems to link to to the actual news sources which would generate ad money for the "hosts."

It's hard to defend the major news outlets. They dropped the ball on finding the obvious facts about the initial Iraq invasion. And right now CNN's front page has nonsense about Anderson Cooper's Top 10 Heroes of the year. * Gag. *

We've gone through periods where publications were highly partisan and the country survived. I think we're going through another period like that and it's not that big of a deal. It just makes me question news sources more which is always a good thing.

So who do you turn to for news in this battle between new and old media?

 

[PJABBER]

Huff and Puff does seem to produce their own content, they have staff writers and their purpose is inevitably slanted leftish.

Matt Drudge never produces his own content, he just identifies stories that he thinks are important and interesting and links them for the convenience of his readers. The link headlines are seldom more than a few words. And he provides direct links to his sources en masse on his page so anyone else can do the same as he does.

Drudge's choices range from economics to politics to news of the bizarre. It is his insight as to what will be important or interesting or both, as well as how quickly he identifies and links these, that give him the page hits that he gets.

The Associated Press and other syndicates exist solely for propagating the work of one source to all the other publishers, should they choose to run it. For any news organization to criticize entities that also choose to do this is specious.

They should be thanking them on their hands and knees for referring readers their way.

 

[Moonbeam]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/sep/23/huffington-post-parasites-washington-post



I sort of see this guy's point. Sites like Drudge and the Huffington Post seem to mostly siphon attention away from news organizations that do more investigation. On the other hand, Drudge seems to link to to the actual news sources which would generate ad money for the "hosts."

It's hard to defend the major news outlets. They dropped the ball on finding the obvious facts about the initial Iraq invasion. And right now CNN's front page has nonsense about Anderson Cooper's Top 10 Heroes of the year. * Gag. *

We've gone through periods where publications were highly partisan and the country survived. I think we're going through another period like that and it's not that big of a deal. It just makes me question news sources more which is always a good thing.

So who do you turn to for news in this battle between new and old media?

Dung beetles only eat shit. When a steak is found they run as fast as they can screaming heresy with their antennae.

 

[Craig234]

I posted on a related topic a while ago, the crisis for investigative journalism as papers lose funding and close, mentioning a Bill Moyers segment.

Most solid reporting, in-depth, some taking months to compile, comes from these investigate reporters that many people leech off.

It's far more profitable to offer 'opinion' and other content, which is why that's most of what we get now.

Unfortunately, I can't quickly get a link to the Moyers segment, which was very useful and had people recommending public funding for investigative journalism.

My first reaction like most was negative, but I warmed to the idea, especially given the history, and the crisis caused by the changing finance in the industry.

I did find a PBS link to a story on the crisis, if it's of interest:

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/expose/2009/06/the-withering-watchdog.html

The issue isn't just aggregate sites - it's that Cable News is mostly based on covering print-reported stories, too.

Without the expensive print reporting, we have very little solid oversight of societal issues public or private.

The well-funded PR by interested parties replaces it, leading to a public that largely adopts the views of those who can afford PR even more than now.

 

[Vette73]

Huff and Puff does seem to produce their own content, they have staff writers and their purpose is inevitably slanted leftish.

Matt Drudge never produces his own content, he just identifies stories that he thinks are important and interesting and links them for the convenience of his readers. The link headlines are seldom more than a few words. And he provides direct links to his sources en masse on his page so anyone else can do the same as he does.

Drudge's choices range from economics to politics to news of the bizarre. It is his insight as to what will be important or interesting or both, as well as how quickly he identifies and links these, that give him the page hits that he gets.

The Associated Press and other syndicates exist solely for propagating the work of one source to all the other publishers, should they choose to run it. For any news organization to criticize entities that also choose to do this is specious.

They should be thanking them on their hands and knees for referring readers their way.

Thats false. All be it they are mostly hack jobs at best.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drudge...tories.2C_errors_and_questions_about_sourcing

 

[Infohawk]

Wow that Sidney Blumenthal story was dirty...

 

[Craig234]

Wow that Sidney Blumenthal story was dirty...

Blumenthal wrote a book about this in detail, and the 'vast right-wing conspiracy' witch hunt of Clinton, "The Clinton Wars".

 

[Double Trouble]

Public funding for journalism is a horrible idea as it leads to a bunch of crap that very few actually want to consume, much like NPR and c-span. If the product is not good enough to survive on it's own merit (ie, the consumer doesn't want it), then it should go away and be replaced by something the public does want.

If the public is dumb and wants a bunch of Paris Hilton stories instead of quality journalism, so be it, then we'll have to suffer the consequences of our own stupidity. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

Huffpo and Drudge and sites like that are indeed pretty much leeches, but ultimately if the industry they are leeching from (newspapers and reporters) go under, they'll have nothing to leech and will go under as well. In the long run, it's in the interest of drugde and huffpo etc to make sure the actual news / reporting generators stay in business.

 

[woolfe9999]

Huff and Puff does seem to produce their own content, they have staff writers and their purpose is inevitably slanted leftish.

Matt Drudge never produces his own content, he just identifies stories that he thinks are important and interesting and links them for the convenience of his readers. The link headlines are seldom more than a few words. And he provides direct links to his sources en masse on his page so anyone else can do the same as he does.

Drudge's choices range from economics to politics to news of the bizarre. It is his insight as to what will be important or interesting or both, as well as how quickly he identifies and links these, that give him the page hits that he gets.

I like how your discussion of HP makes mention of its left slant, but your discussion of Drudge makes no mention of a political bias. You think somehow that not producing your own content means you don't have a political bias? Ever hear of selection bias?

- wolf

 

[her209]

Just remember, Fox News is entertainment.

 

[StageLeft]

But drudge forwards me to these sites. I think news aggregators are great. I have to say I visit drudge more than any other news site. Maybe it's because I hate myself but I think it's more because it's a very fast loading site and very succinctly points things out. I guess I also like the combination of politics, financial news, other news, and pure crap news on it. I am totally aware that Matt Drudge biases one's views simply based on the links he chooses so I go to other sites as well.

And yes I think journalism is dying in this country.

 

[ayabe]

Public funding for journalism is a horrible idea as it leads to a bunch of crap that very few actually want to consume, much like NPR and c-span. If the product is not good enough to survive on it's own merit (ie, the consumer doesn't want it), then it should go away and be replaced by something the public does want.

Lots of people listen to NPR, myself included. It's amazing to have something which is so different from everything else, where you can get just the facts without the sensationalism and BS.

You seem to argue that because rubes don't like NPR or other boring news sources, then they should be eliminated and replaced with TMZ TV or whatever because that's what they're interested in. I think we ought to be encouraging people to broaden their horizons rather than trying appeal to some lowest common denominator.

 

[Double Trouble]

Lots of people listen to NPR, myself included. It's amazing to have something which is so different from everything else, where you can get just the facts without the sensationalism and BS.

Well, those "lots of people" are not enough to sustain it. Apparently those "lots of people" are not that many as their ratings are absolutely pathetic, lower than the average informercial on a normal station.

You seem to argue that because rubes don't like NPR or other boring news sources, then they should be eliminated and replaced with TMZ TV or whatever because that's what they're interested in. I think we ought to be encouraging people to broaden their horizons rather than trying appeal to some lowest common denominator.

You call people who don't like it "rubes" and you say you like NPR. That's fine, then YOU pay for it. The money should not come from the taxpayers if the taxpayers are simply not interested in watching it, as judged by the ratings.

 

[alphatarget1]

Public funding for journalism is a horrible idea as it leads to a bunch of crap that very few actually want to consume, much like NPR and c-span. If the product is not good enough to survive on it's own merit (ie, the consumer doesn't want it), then it should go away and be replaced by something the public does want.

If the public is dumb and wants a bunch of Paris Hilton stories instead of quality journalism, so be it, then we'll have to suffer the consequences of our own stupidity. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

I think NPR has a left-wing slant but it produces quality programming. The society pays a price when a lot of its populace only cares about Paris Hilton...

 

[Double Trouble]

I think NPR has a left-wing slant but it produces quality programming. The society pays a price when a lot of its populace only cares about Paris Hilton...

If nobody is watching/listening (and, judging by the ratings, nobody is), then what real benefit is there to it existing? Sure, they might produce decent programming every now and again (I listen to NPR once in a while), but the ratings show only a few people are listening, so there's very little benefit to having it.

Either way, my point was not an attack on NPR -- I think they are generally decent but with a liberal slant -- the point was that government funded "journalism" is crap. New media is taking over, right-wing nutjobs like Rush and Beck etc are not having problems, they're making money. It's the liberal papers and stations that are having trouble .... and all of a sudden we need government to fund them? No, no, a thousand times no, they need to thrive or fail based on their own merits, not on the public dole.

 

[Craig234]

Just remember, Fox News is entertainment.

Except it's not. It's entertaining propaganda.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Well, those "lots of people" are not enough to sustain it. Apparently those "lots of people" are not that many as their ratings are absolutely pathetic, lower than the average informercial on a normal station.
You call people who don't like it "rubes" and you say you like NPR. That's fine, then YOU pay for it. The money should not come from the taxpayers if the taxpayers are simply not interested in watching it, as judged by the ratings.

From a response to the Weekly Standard:

A note from Anna Christopher, Senior Manager, NPR Media Relations:
I read your post last night, and would like to correct your misconceptions about NPR:
NPR is not "government-funded" - and since that misconception provides the basis for your argument, your entire post is inaccurate. NPR receives less than 2% of its funding from competitive grants sought by NPR from federally funded organizations (such as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, National Science Foundation and the National Endowment for the Arts).
If you'd like to check any additional facts, I'm always available. I appreciate you updating your post to accurately reflect NPR's sources of funding.

 

[Craig234]

Well, those "lots of people" are not enough to sustain it. Apparently those "lots of people" are not that many as their ratings are absolutely pathetic, lower than the average informercial on a normal station.

Links?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/23/AR2009032302972.html

 

[Mike Gayner]

Huffpo and Drudge and sites like that are indeed pretty much leeches, but ultimately if the industry they are leeching from (newspapers and reporters) go under, they'll have nothing to leech and will go under as well. In the long run, it's in the interest of drugde and huffpo etc to make sure the actual news / reporting generators stay in business.

....and is this supposed to be the pinnacle of LOLbertarian success? When there's no longer any journalism of merit?

 

[Double Trouble]

....and is this supposed to be the pinnacle of LOLbertarian success? When there's no longer any journalism of merit?

Has there not been any journalism of merit over the first 200 years of this country? Why all of a sudden now do we need to start having government pay for it? And that's not even considering all the potential nasty side effects of having the government fund journalism, which is supposed to (among other things) be a watchdog of government. Bad idea.

 

[Steeplerot]

We've gone through periods where publications were highly partisan and the country survived.

We have had times of yellow journalism (sensationalistic news instead of reporting) but it always leads to a misinformed public opinion getting us into messes (Like Spanish-American War/Hearst Papers and Iraq/Foxnews.

The right-wing reactionary call of "Remember the Maine!" rings as pathetically hollow as Iraqi WMD fearmongering the turn of this century now.

This is what happens when you let $ and profits get involved in something the public trusts to keep us a informed democracy.

 

[Double Trouble]

From a response to the Weekly Standard:

I never said they get ALL their funding from the government. From wiki:

According to the 2005 financial statement, NPR makes just over half of its money from the fees and dues it charges member stations to receive programming. Public funding accounts for 16% of the average member station's revenue, with 10% of this coming in the form of grants from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a federally funded organization.[14][15][16] Some more of that money originates from local and state governments and government-funded universities subsidizing member stations' fees and dues to NPR.[17] Member stations that serve rural and "minority" communities receive significantly more funding from the CPB; in some cases up to 70%.[14] About 2% of NPR's non-membership created funding comes from bidding on government grants and programs, chiefly the Corporation for Public Broadcasting; the remainder comes from member station dues, foundation grants, and corporate underwriting. Typically, NPR member stations raise funds through on-air pledge drives, corporate underwriting, and grants from state governments, universities, and the CPB itself.
Over the years, the portion of the total NPR budget that comes from government funding has decreased. During the 1970s and early 1980s, the majority of NPR funding came from the federal government. Steps were taken during the 1980s to completely wean NPR from government support, but the 1983 funding crisis forced the network to make immediate changes. More money to fund the NPR network was raised from listeners, charitable foundations and corporations, and less from the federal government.

Clearly they are getting a significant amount of funding from various government sources. They should not be getting ANY funding from government. They get most of their funding from (probably left-leaning) private foundations.

 

[Mike Gayner]

Has there not been any journalism of merit over the first 200 years of this country? Why all of a sudden now do we need to start having government pay for it? And that's not even considering all the potential nasty side effects of having the government fund journalism, which is supposed to (among other things) be a watchdog of government. Bad idea.

Hmmm, what could possible have changed in the last 15 years that could have a serious impact on the way the journalism business operates....hmmmmm.....well nothing I can think of

 

[Red Dawn]

Just remember, Fox News is entertainment.

If you call getting a daily dose of Faux Outrage entertainment

 

[Infohawk]

We have had times of yellow journalism (sensationalistic news instead of reporting) but it always leads to a misinformed public opinion getting us into messes (Like Spanish-American War/Hearst Papers and Iraq/Foxnews.

The right-wing reactionary call of "Remember the Maine!" rings as pathetically hollow as Iraqi WMD fearmongering the turn of this century now.

This is what happens when you let $ and profits get involved in something the public trusts to keep us a informed democracy.

I blame stupid citizens not partisan journalism for the wars. The problem wasn't that Fox News was behind the Iraq War, it was that even the New York times was. Maybe if we had more partisan left-wing blogs back then things might have been shaken up earlier? They were out there but they weren't as mainstream as they are now.

My position is that all ideas should be put out on the table include Fox News and DailyKos and we'll reason them out. And if we don't, it's our collective fault.

In some ways I think having Fox and DailyKos duke it out is a better solution than having two moderate but supposedly responsible suits debate it on network television.