Wow. If news is only "content" that exists to sell advertising, then sure, go ahead and believe that there'd be no problem if journalism were to "tear down, or at least modify, the 'Chinese wall' between content and the business side."
But if news consists, in some significant part, of journalism -- of gathering perspectives and verifying facts and giving voice to stories and ultimately serving as an independent check on government and power -- then it is troubling to think giving up on this is the only future Andreessen sees for news.
An independent check on government and power? Where and when has this happened? I know this is the story journolists (sic) tell themselves, but for all of its adoption of a neutral speaking-truth-to-power self-description, the modern practice of reporting is pretty much in lock-step with (one could almost say 'produces and reproduces') the establishment.
> Paying attention to the business doesn’t equal warped coverage.
which would be nice if it were true, but it begs the question of why we should believe that there is a business model out there that doesn't grossly warp coverage (worse than what we already have). The news-focused business models I've seen in the wild warp coverage fairly heavily in directions I don't entirely approve of and it seems that the new models are just as bad if not worse than the old ones. Why should I believe this will change?
I used to work on the business side of the house. In the classifieds department of one of the first acquisitions of what became Newscorp -- that formidable journal of record, the NT News.
Journalists irked me. Dangerous people. Arrogant. Flighty. Prone to exploiting social norms of disclosure to get a story. Always in a rush to do the minimum possible to hit the quota by deadline.
And essential to the functioning of a free and open society. Like lawyers, we hate them, but we'd be in deep trouble without them.
We already have the Andressen model of "News". It's called long copy marketing, and it's really annoying. No substantial positive public externalities come from it. Oh, and I guess gossip sites too. A critical bulwark of the yeomanry, gossip sites.
>> Here’s another thing holding back the future of news: the notion that “objectivity” is the only model worth pursuing. The practice of gathering all sides of an issue, and keeping an editorial voice out of it, is still relevant for some, but the broad journalism opportunity includes many variations of subjectivity.
Grantland, to me, has figured this out better than anyone else (at least of the largest journalism endeavors). It helps that Bill Simmons is a pioneer of open subjectivity as a modern journalist, but most of their staff blends some level of subjectivity into their work (even Zach Lowe, who Simmons calls Spock in a reference to his rationality, and who admits to losing his personal team fandom after working as a journalist, has a weekly piece called "10 Things I Like and Don't Like). It also is probably worth noting that, being an ESPN website, they don't really need to worry about breaking news, as they just work closely with the traditional "reporters" of ESPN (although even then, guys like Marc Stein still inject their subjective views a bit).
There's a place for old fashioned, unbiased reporting. However, it may be the case that this style of journalism becomes a supplement, existing on Twitter and in interviews, to Andreesen's proposed "marketplace of ideas." The decentralized nature of the internet makes this much more realistic than it was when television and newspapers controlled access to information.
I respect Marc Andreessen's opinion a lot, but that seems like a dangerous idea to me. Further in the article, he's quoted as saying:
"There’s a reason so many newer sites are writing with verve and voice: It works."
I think that statement hinges pretty strongly on how we define "working", and I would posit that page views and ad sales should not be the metric by which we measure journalistic success. It's true that technology has made it easier for a lot of people to publish their opinions, and that's fantastic, but there's still enormous merit in having news sources which attempt to present news objectively.
Alternatively, it points out that half the news is already purchased, but through a very inefficient pipeline where PR firms get most of the money. If companies could buy press coverage directly from the news outlets, the outlets could make more money from fewer purchased stories.
There ought to be more awareness and communication on both sides [business and journalism], so that decisions can be made with full knowledge of the financial and journalistic impacts.
Statements like this suggest to my mind that we're in a new gilded age, where journalism becomes a marketing channel.
He has, in a sense, bought protection and good coverage for his fund and his portfolio companies from Business Insider and Panda Daily by throwing them a few bones. Price of doing business...and a very small price to boot. He gets something and they get money to pump and then dump their scuzzy websites.
Not entirely in the spirit of this site, but this is Hacker News, and it's the weekend, and Mr. Andreesen says "presenting an event or an issue with a point of view can have even more impact and reach an audience otherwise left out of the conversation. There’s a reason so many newer sites are writing with verve and voice: It works", so let me try presenting this article his way:
Marc Andreessen, the famous Silicon Valley mogul known for his vehement defense of bigots and assholes, now teaches journalists why they've been doing it all wrong. Another Rupert Murdoch in the making?
> Marc Andreessen is co-founder of the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz.
I am sure that to most people here he is is afforded rock-star status because he is the guy that co-founded Netscape (and then went on to do other things like dabble in VC). Interesting how Netscape is no longer the big thing on his resume, he trades his reputation and name on what he does now rather than what he did back then.
Andreesen argues: "But the objective approach is only one way to tell stories and get at truth. Many stories don’t have two sides."
First: this is a mischaracterization of objectivity.
Objectivity doesn't mean "consider both or all sides of an argument", it means "judgment based on observable phenomena and uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices" (WordNet 2006). Very often, one (or more) sides of a story is simply wrong. Worse: they're often quite deliberately muddying the waters.
This is a point emphasized by economic historian Philip Mirowski: "[Neoliberals] honestly think that it's OK to pump lots of noise into the marketplace of ideas. That doesn't hurt things."
And this is pursued as a deliberate strategy called "agnotology" by Robert N. Proctor of Stanford: "the study of culturally induced ignorance or doubt, particularly the publication of inaccurate or misleading scientific data. " More: http://redd.it/2363bo
On Andreesen's idea of tearing down the "Chinese wall" between reporting and business:
"No other non-monopoly industry lets product creators off the hook on how the business works."
First off, that's not true. Many high-value information-centric activities function in just such a way: publishing, arts and theatrical groups, and more. While they may produce "popular" works, a great deal of effort is put into activities which reach deeper into meaning and understanding than the larger market will generally support. There's a strong level of positive externality associated with these activities -- that is, a public good which market transactions cannot capture for the producer.
And so there's a reason for the Chinese Wall:
The market for news (as opposed to, say, the entertainment content produced by Fox) is one of information itself. And information is a very difficult economic good at the best of times:
• It's nonuniform. One piece of information isn't interchangeable with another, unlike, say, one bottle of water, shipment of grain, unit of lumber, mass-produced garment, or unit of unskilled or semi-skilled labor.
• Fixed and marginal costs are highly disproportionate. Sending someone to where the news is, or digging to the bottom of a complex story, is expensive in labor, time, and other resources. Once produced, words, copy, audio, or video can be reproduced and retransmitted around the world instantly for free. Much as for software.
• There's a very strong time value. For electronic market trading, now measured in miliseconds, and for much else, between minutes and a day or so for breaking stories. The precise same work product after its sell-by date is effectively worthless.
• The potential for bias, accuracy, and relevance in news is profound. Skewed reporting to meet business needs can very, very rapidly incentivize coverage which is not actually useful, informative, or relevant.
There's a strong argument to be made, in my opinion, that news should be strongly sheltered from market forces, and often the news sources which are the most reliable do come from organizations which are not run as well, from a business perspective, as they might be. Two of these, the British Guardian and the American Christian Science Monitor punch well above their weight, and even The New York Times, while profitable, is less so than its operations, size, and influence would seem to dictate.
Yes, there are any number of inefficiencies and obsolete practices within existing news organizations, but I find this set of prescriptions chilling.
If Andreesen's vision is the future of news, then I'm very, very bearish.
Marc supports the "new" media, ala BusinessInsider. Ironically, they wouldn't have a story if not for the old, "bloated media," since all they do is cut /paste and rewrite a few sentences.
Real journalism costs money. A lot of money to produce and a lot of money (is) lost since they don't coddle to say, Exxon, GE, MS or Google.
[+] [-] aasarava|12 years ago|reply
But if news consists, in some significant part, of journalism -- of gathering perspectives and verifying facts and giving voice to stories and ultimately serving as an independent check on government and power -- then it is troubling to think giving up on this is the only future Andreessen sees for news.
[+] [-] splittist|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jjoonathan|12 years ago|reply
> Paying attention to the business doesn’t equal warped coverage.
which would be nice if it were true, but it begs the question of why we should believe that there is a business model out there that doesn't grossly warp coverage (worse than what we already have). The news-focused business models I've seen in the wild warp coverage fairly heavily in directions I don't entirely approve of and it seems that the new models are just as bad if not worse than the old ones. Why should I believe this will change?
[+] [-] jacques_chester|12 years ago|reply
Journalists irked me. Dangerous people. Arrogant. Flighty. Prone to exploiting social norms of disclosure to get a story. Always in a rush to do the minimum possible to hit the quota by deadline.
And essential to the functioning of a free and open society. Like lawyers, we hate them, but we'd be in deep trouble without them.
We already have the Andressen model of "News". It's called long copy marketing, and it's really annoying. No substantial positive public externalities come from it. Oh, and I guess gossip sites too. A critical bulwark of the yeomanry, gossip sites.
[+] [-] the_watcher|12 years ago|reply
Grantland, to me, has figured this out better than anyone else (at least of the largest journalism endeavors). It helps that Bill Simmons is a pioneer of open subjectivity as a modern journalist, but most of their staff blends some level of subjectivity into their work (even Zach Lowe, who Simmons calls Spock in a reference to his rationality, and who admits to losing his personal team fandom after working as a journalist, has a weekly piece called "10 Things I Like and Don't Like). It also is probably worth noting that, being an ESPN website, they don't really need to worry about breaking news, as they just work closely with the traditional "reporters" of ESPN (although even then, guys like Marc Stein still inject their subjective views a bit).
There's a place for old fashioned, unbiased reporting. However, it may be the case that this style of journalism becomes a supplement, existing on Twitter and in interviews, to Andreesen's proposed "marketplace of ideas." The decentralized nature of the internet makes this much more realistic than it was when television and newspapers controlled access to information.
[+] [-] napoleond|12 years ago|reply
"There’s a reason so many newer sites are writing with verve and voice: It works."
I think that statement hinges pretty strongly on how we define "working", and I would posit that page views and ad sales should not be the metric by which we measure journalistic success. It's true that technology has made it easier for a lot of people to publish their opinions, and that's fantastic, but there's still enormous merit in having news sources which attempt to present news objectively.
[+] [-] anigbrowl|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tlb|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] allochthon|12 years ago|reply
Statements like this suggest to my mind that we're in a new gilded age, where journalism becomes a marketing channel.
[+] [-] Elizer0x0309|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] whoismua|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pron|12 years ago|reply
Marc Andreessen, the famous Silicon Valley mogul known for his vehement defense of bigots and assholes, now teaches journalists why they've been doing it all wrong. Another Rupert Murdoch in the making?
[+] [-] Theodores|12 years ago|reply
> Marc Andreessen is co-founder of the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz.
I am sure that to most people here he is is afforded rock-star status because he is the guy that co-founded Netscape (and then went on to do other things like dabble in VC). Interesting how Netscape is no longer the big thing on his resume, he trades his reputation and name on what he does now rather than what he did back then.
[+] [-] gargarplex|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aaronbrethorst|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dredmorbius|12 years ago|reply
Andreesen argues: "But the objective approach is only one way to tell stories and get at truth. Many stories don’t have two sides."
First: this is a mischaracterization of objectivity.
Objectivity doesn't mean "consider both or all sides of an argument", it means "judgment based on observable phenomena and uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices" (WordNet 2006). Very often, one (or more) sides of a story is simply wrong. Worse: they're often quite deliberately muddying the waters.
This is a point emphasized by economic historian Philip Mirowski: "[Neoliberals] honestly think that it's OK to pump lots of noise into the marketplace of ideas. That doesn't hurt things."
See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7ewn29w-9I @ 39m30s
And this is pursued as a deliberate strategy called "agnotology" by Robert N. Proctor of Stanford: "the study of culturally induced ignorance or doubt, particularly the publication of inaccurate or misleading scientific data. " More: http://redd.it/2363bo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnotology
On Andreesen's idea of tearing down the "Chinese wall" between reporting and business: "No other non-monopoly industry lets product creators off the hook on how the business works."
First off, that's not true. Many high-value information-centric activities function in just such a way: publishing, arts and theatrical groups, and more. While they may produce "popular" works, a great deal of effort is put into activities which reach deeper into meaning and understanding than the larger market will generally support. There's a strong level of positive externality associated with these activities -- that is, a public good which market transactions cannot capture for the producer.
And so there's a reason for the Chinese Wall:
The market for news (as opposed to, say, the entertainment content produced by Fox) is one of information itself. And information is a very difficult economic good at the best of times:
• It's nonuniform. One piece of information isn't interchangeable with another, unlike, say, one bottle of water, shipment of grain, unit of lumber, mass-produced garment, or unit of unskilled or semi-skilled labor.
• Fixed and marginal costs are highly disproportionate. Sending someone to where the news is, or digging to the bottom of a complex story, is expensive in labor, time, and other resources. Once produced, words, copy, audio, or video can be reproduced and retransmitted around the world instantly for free. Much as for software.
• There's a very strong time value. For electronic market trading, now measured in miliseconds, and for much else, between minutes and a day or so for breaking stories. The precise same work product after its sell-by date is effectively worthless.
• The potential for bias, accuracy, and relevance in news is profound. Skewed reporting to meet business needs can very, very rapidly incentivize coverage which is not actually useful, informative, or relevant.
There's a strong argument to be made, in my opinion, that news should be strongly sheltered from market forces, and often the news sources which are the most reliable do come from organizations which are not run as well, from a business perspective, as they might be. Two of these, the British Guardian and the American Christian Science Monitor punch well above their weight, and even The New York Times, while profitable, is less so than its operations, size, and influence would seem to dictate.
Yes, there are any number of inefficiencies and obsolete practices within existing news organizations, but I find this set of prescriptions chilling.
If Andreesen's vision is the future of news, then I'm very, very bearish.
[+] [-] whoismua|12 years ago|reply
Real journalism costs money. A lot of money to produce and a lot of money (is) lost since they don't coddle to say, Exxon, GE, MS or Google.