• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

So-Called Journalisms graphic heavy pages and videos

H

Hawkeye10

Buttermilk Man
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 29, 2015
Messages
45,404
Reaction score
11,746
Location
Olympia Wa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Sorry if this is the wrong forum, it seems in practice to be the one to talk about the So-Called Journalists generally, not just their bias.

NYT's for instance of late has been spending a ton of time and money to make fancy dancy on-line graphics, for instance the one they did on the NYC Subway delays last week (this week?), and I have seen others. I just clicked a link that I thought (because there was no indication otherwise) was a text story at USA Today...it was another video, so I bailed., I almost never am willing to invest in that great time suck. The heavy graphics are almost always clutter to me, slowing me down, sometimes even making the pages load slow.

What is this, more pandering to consumers out looking for someone to titillate them? I bias towards the people too stupid to be able to consume text efficiently?

What motivates this, and how do you feel about it, what do you do about it?

I cope by avoiding most of it as best I can, but the problem is getting worse.
 
Last edited:
Hawkeye10 said:
Sorry if this is the wrong forum, it seems in practice to be the one to talk about the So-Called Journalists generally, not just their bias.

NYT's for instance of late has been spending a ton of time and money to make fancy dancy on-line graphics, for instance the one they did on the NYC Subway delays last week (this week?), and I have seen others. I just clicked a link that I thought (because there was no indication otherwise) was a text story at USA Today...it was another video, so I bailed., I almost never am willing to invest in that great time suck. The heavy graphics are almost always clutter to me, slowing me down, sometimes even making the pages load slow.

What is this, more pandering to consumers out looking for someone to titillate them? I bias towards the people too stupid to be able to consume text efficiently?

What motivates this, and how do you feel about it, what do you do about it?

I cope by avoiding most of it as best I can, but the problem is getting worse.
Click to expand...

From the sound of it, you might want to get glasses. I think.
 
Gee, I hope you survive this crisis.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Sorry if this is the wrong forum, it seems in practice to be the one to talk about the So-Called Journalists generally, not just their bias.

NYT's for instance of late has been spending a ton of time and money to make fancy dancy on-line graphics, for instance the one they did on the NYC Subway delays last week (this week?), and I have seen others. I just clicked a link that I thought (because there was no indication otherwise) was a text story at USA Today...it was another video, so I bailed., I almost never am willing to invest in that great time suck. The heavy graphics are almost always clutter to me, slowing me down, sometimes even making the pages load slow.

What is this, more pandering to consumers out looking for someone to titillate them? I bias towards the people too stupid to be able to consume text efficiently?

What motivates this, and how do you feel about it, what do you do about it?

I cope by avoiding most of it as best I can, but the problem is getting worse.
Click to expand...

The media has to write or produce with their aim being to get across the information, to a growing population of people that grew up getting their information in 140 characters or less. So, pictures are required to keep the people interested, and to help them understand.

Although there are more than enough reasons to complain about the media, this one, IMHO, is not the media's fault, since all they are doing is matching the intellectual capability and capacity of their consumer.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
What motivates this, and how do you feel about it, what do you do about it?
Click to expand...
I agree entirely but you and I are behind the times in our preferences. The core market for these sites aren't willing to read lots of fixed text and will probably be more likely to stick around for a video. I suspect there's an advertising element too; videos are generally easier to monetise than flat text and adding more graphics and pictures means the same amount of writing covers more pages and thus leaves room for more adverts.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Sorry if this is the wrong forum, it seems in practice to be the one to talk about the So-Called Journalists generally, not just their bias.

NYT's for instance of late has been spending a ton of time and money to make fancy dancy on-line graphics, for instance the one they did on the NYC Subway delays last week (this week?), and I have seen others. I just clicked a link that I thought (because there was no indication otherwise) was a text story at USA Today...it was another video, so I bailed., I almost never am willing to invest in that great time suck. The heavy graphics are almost always clutter to me, slowing me down, sometimes even making the pages load slow.

What is this, more pandering to consumers out looking for someone to titillate them? I bias towards the people too stupid to be able to consume text efficiently?

What motivates this, and how do you feel about it, what do you do about it?

I cope by avoiding most of it as best I can, but the problem is getting worse.
Click to expand...

Hawkeye10:

Uniquely print-based media is no longer very attractive to the great majority of media consumers today and in a for-profit marketplace almost all media outlets are moving towards a multimedia methodology in order to avoid becoming irrelevant and extinct as a business. Embedded videos, embedded podcasts, flashy graphics and visual memes along with often inane and polarising comment sections are the new normal I'm afraid and we're all just going to have to get used to it. Mr. Gutenberg and Mr. Hearst, Mr. Dewey and Mr. Cronkite are now no longer the models for the dissemination of information in modern society. As Mr. Dylan said, "The times, they are a chang'in.".

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Evilroddy said:
Hawkeye10:

Uniquely print-based media is no longer very attractive to the great majority of media consumers today and in a for-profit marketplace almost all media outlets are moving towards a multimedia methodology in order to avoid becoming irrelevant and extinct as a business. Embedded videos, embedded podcasts, flashy graphics and visual memes along with often inane and polarising comment sections are the new normal I'm afraid and we're all just going to have to get used to it. Mr. Gutenberg and Mr. Hearst, Mr. Dewey and Mr. Cronkite are now no longer the models for the dissemination of information in modern society. As Mr. Dylan said, "The times, they are a chang'in.".

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

I say no, I do not need to "just get used to" inferior messaging methods....we absolutely need to start caring about quality again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom