Remember when a news story was just a news story?

I was looking at an old local paper from 2003 I found in a box. A story about a new park bench was just that, a short article. Now, that same story would be a 5-minute video online with a host acting like the bench is a sign of societal collapse. The difference is they used to just give you the facts and let you decide. Now they have to make you feel something, usually anger, to keep you watching. It's all about clicks, not news. Has anyone else noticed how calm old reporting looks compared to today's stuff?

4 comments

4 Comments

rose_allen6016d ago

Actually, local papers always had fluff pieces like that bench story. The real change is that angry national cable news style took over everything.

wren23016d ago

Ugh, yes. Heard a guy on a podcast talk about this exact thing. He called it the "outrage economy." Said news sites make more money when people are mad and sharing stuff. So every little story gets turned into a big deal to get that reaction. It's exhausting. I miss just getting the plain facts without all the extra noise.

owens.jenny16d ago

Yeah, that "outrage economy" line hits hard. It feels like everything is a crisis now just to get clicks. I see what @rose_allen60 means about local papers having fluff, but at least that was harmless. This new stuff makes you feel bad on purpose. I just want to know what happened without being told how to feel about it.

wren_mitchell16d ago

Totally agree with @wren230 about the outrage economy. It makes me wonder, what's the actual fix? Do we just stop clicking on those angry headlines, or is there a way to support news that doesn't run on anger?

-1