Personalization is very over rated without deep constantly updating context, than currently provided by media orgs. And where that deep context exists, given bandwidth and info processing limits, there is no rational reason for news consumption to happen at the frequency it did in the past.
It just feels natural - division of labor and specialization - to handle info explosion.
The trillion cells in the body maintain coherence at macro level without need for a newspaper getting delivered to them about what is happening everywhere all the time.
incomingpain•8mo ago
>Opinion or commentary is not news.
Why do they exclude this?
What is the "NEWs" to me might be old school?
It's literally, "hey buddy, what's new?"
The newspaper boy on the corner is then selling a paper of the NEW things. Rarely if ever do you get old stories; and if there is, it's what new update about it.
Opinions, celebrities, anything that's new will always be news. There's very obviously celebrity news.
https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/usshowbiz/index.html
I think Pew research fell off a cliff trying to redefine what the news is?
>“I used to listen to the mainstream media like everybody else, like CNN or MSNBC, but I have found these media outlets no longer supply me with the truthful information that I need.” –Man, 50s, Republican-leaning independent
The real discussion is here. Why did the news get caught lying over and over, burn their trust and cause a democratic crisis? You dont redefine the news to try to get away from this.
hn_acker•8mo ago
> Why do they exclude this?
...
> I think Pew research fell off a cliff trying to redefine what the news is?
I think you misunderstood. Pew Research didn't define news. The survey respondents did.
> People also hold consistent ideas about what is not news:
> Opinion or commentary is not news. Both journalists and participants make clear distinctions between factual reporting and personal opinion, further emphasizing an idea of news as “just the facts.”