Modern Media

[Mute Monk]

For me, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are the only news presenters worth watching. And for news of the homeland, I watch This Hour Has 22 Minutes and the Rick Mercer Report.

[scythe]

Steve Jobs hits this one on the head.

I also think it's a disgrace that our primary news media sets out to entertain rather than to inform.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

Steve Jobs hits this one on the head.

I also think it's a disgrace that our primary news media sets out to entertain rather than to inform.

Wow.
*subscribes to Jobs' blog*

[SkyPanda]

The NY times article was covering the phenomen of online games, for those who are likely to know little about the subject. The TechCrunch article was specifically about the scamming element of the games, and was written for a target audience of people who actually know about this kind of thing.

Not only were the articles about different things, written for completely different reasons, but this Steve Jobs fellow makes some mighty strange points:

and yet they included not a single word about the scammy ads. Not. A. Fucking. Word.

This was in the NY Times article:

Players can also earn virtual currency by signing up for subscription services or installing pop-up advertising software. But some social gaming companies have cut back on such offers after criticism that they were misleading and in some cases defrauding players.

Liar liar pants on fire, Steve Jobs?

I also think it's a disgrace that our primary news media sets out to entertain rather than to inform.

Ok, but they don't. And even if they did, the disgrace does not fall on the news media (i'm assuming you believe otherwise here). Do you expect people to offer you a service for nothing? :/

[scythe]

The NY times article was covering the phenomen making money selling worthless garbage to ten-year-olds of online games, for those who are likely to know little about the subject. The TechCrunch article was specifically about the scamming element of the games, and was written for a target audience of people who actually know about this kind of thing.

And covering that phenomenon without pointing out the fact that a large majority of the games are scams run by scumbags is dishonest.

Not only were the articles about different things, written for completely different reasons, but this Steve Jobs fellow makes some mighty strange points:

and yet they included not a single word about the scammy ads. Not. A. Fucking. Word.

This was in the NY Times article:

Players can also earn virtual currency by signing up for subscription services or installing pop-up advertising software. But some social gaming companies have cut back on such offers after criticism that they were misleading and in some cases defrauding players.

Liar liar pants on fire, Steve Jobs?

Yeah, they pulled a "critics have said" and quickly moved on to the next topic. Steve Jobs was entirely correct there, since they didn't mention anything about scam ads.

More importantly, they were both talking about the way people were making money off of Facebook games, except the New York Times talked about it like it was legitimate, performed zero investigative journalism whatsoever, and TechCrunch completely exposed these dudes. It doesn't take a whole lot of foreknowledge to understand the TechCrunch article, really -- the fact is that the NYTimes article was garbage.

I also think it's a disgrace that our primary news media sets out to entertain rather than to inform.

Ok, but they don't. And even if they did, the disgrace does not fall on the news media (i'm assuming you believe otherwise here). Do you expect people to offer you a service for nothing? :/

You must be watching different news than I am. And besides, Arrington doesn't seem to be doing a terrible job (remember when we all hated TechCrunch? I'm starting to like them).

[SkyPanda]

More importantly, they were both talking about the way people were making money off of Facebook games, except the New York Times talked about it like it was legitimate, performed zero investigative journalism whatsoever, and TechCrunch completely exposed these dudes. It doesn't take a whole lot of foreknowledge to understand the TechCrunch article, really -- the fact is that the NYTimes article was garbage.

Fair call. Even though i'm dissenting on all counts here, I can honestly see where you're coming from.

First up, I stand by that the NY Times article and the TechCrunch article were for different purposes and viewers, and this obviously would come through in the style, detail and content covered. Why would the NY Times go into lengthy exposition on a complicated scam affecting some online games when their readership probably doesn't even know about the /existence/ of the games. They wrote a balanced article that covered a lot of information. The TechCrunch dude wrote an inbalanced article that was quite specific. In my book, one-sided rants don't even begin to compare to articles that are prepared to give more than one angle to an issue! Let's not confuse "investigative" with "bitchy, aggressive and one-sided".

Steve Jobs was entirely correct there, since they didn't mention anything about scam ads.

I'm gonna be nitpicky and say that he was being nitpicky.
Steve: "they use scam ads"
NYT: "they defraud customers"
If, like me, you think these statements convey pretty much the same essential information, just with varying degrees of detail, then Jobs was lying. If you think that Jobs was not lying, then at best he was being maliciously misleading. It's not speaking much for his credibility right now. Using underhand tactics to push an article that dishes out criticism to other journalists? Hmmm.

You must be watching different news than I am.

Well, yeah. ;P
But people like to criticise the media down here too. It's like lawyers and politicians - people will unconditionally hate irregardless of circumstances, facts, any sort of knowledge on the subject, etc. It IS well-deserved criticism though: media folk are the worst, they're worse than a mutant lawyer-politician-taxman with ten eyes and slimy tentacles. Just not for any of the reasons given in this thread so far.

I've already given at least one reason for entertainment not being the driving factor behind mainstream news media- it makes commercial sense to provide more than entertainment. They don't interrupt our favourite television shows for urgent entertainment broadcasts.
No, the news isn't about entertainment. If anything, they'll try and play to your emotions- fear, anger, joy, jealousy, and so on- but at the end of the day, we watch the news because we want to know what's going on, not because we want to be entertained. This, as Blackson kinda talked about, hasn't stopped a blurring between news and entertainment, for the people who like both. Shows like A Current Affair are testament to that. But in the confusing swamp of modern media, current affair shows have their place in the sludge at the bottom, and it is their existence that give this topic the slightest bit of validity. Doesn't excuse all the sweeping statements about the media so far, though.

Not that the intent of the media matters. Why do you think it is a disgrace that the media set out to whatever? They set out to make money. It leads to problems, sure, but a disgrace? Problems of a capitalist society aren't the fault of its participants, surely.
I can't imagine a situation in which mainstream media can exist solely to inform without descending into financial ruin, pricing customers out of consumption, or leeching off the institutions which they need to be independent of. But you can? Step up, i'm all ears :p

[otters~1]

Steve Jobs hits this one on the head.

I also think it's a disgrace that our primary news media sets out to entertain rather than to inform.

Wow.
*subscribes to Jobs' blog*

QFE

Regardless of the validity of his argument, Jobs was amusing as usual.

[scythe]

More importantly, they were both talking about the way people were making money off of Facebook games, except the New York Times talked about it like it was legitimate, performed zero investigative journalism whatsoever, and TechCrunch completely exposed these dudes. It doesn't take a whole lot of foreknowledge to understand the TechCrunch article, really -- the fact is that the NYTimes article was garbage.

Fair call. Even though i'm dissenting on all counts here, I can honestly see where you're coming from.

First up, I stand by that the NY Times article and the TechCrunch article were for different purposes and viewers, and this obviously would come through in the style, detail and content covered. Why would the NY Times go into lengthy exposition on a complicated scam affecting some online games when their readership probably doesn't even know about the /existence/ of the games. They wrote a balanced article that covered a lot of information. The TechCrunch dude wrote an inbalanced article that was quite specific. In my book, one-sided rants don't even begin to compare to articles that are prepared to give more than one angle to an issue! Let's not confuse "investigative" with "bitchy, aggressive and one-sided".

It's an extremely common scam, and it's practiced by every single company that the NY Times mentioned. It wasn't a balanced article at all, it was a PR outlet for the scumbags that Arrington was busy destroying.

If you think Arrington was "bitchy, aggressive, and one-sided", I dare you to contradict any of his quite valid evidence. I think Suki wrote something about this, and I'll be glad to dig it up if you would like to hear it.

Steve Jobs was entirely correct there, since they didn't mention anything about scam ads.

I'm gonna be nitpicky and say that he was being nitpicky.
Steve: "they use scam ads"
NYT: "critics say they defraud customers"
If, like me, you think these statements convey pretty much the same essential information, just with varying degrees of detail, then Jobs was lying. If you think that Jobs was not lying, then at best he was being maliciously misleading. It's not speaking much for his credibility right now. Using underhand tactics to push an article that dishes out criticism to other journalists? Hmmm.

I added the bold part. There's a huge difference between what Arrington and NYTimes were saying.

Plus, Arrington said a lot more than "they use scam ads". He investigated and found proof of exactly how they use scam ads, and how in fact they were trying to hide the ads from him specifically and show them to every other Facebook user.

Did you even read the TechCrunch articles and watch the video? The evidence is completely damning, it was available before the NYTimes wrote their article, and yet the NYTimes treated it like it was a rumor believed only by a few crackpots, which is precisely the opposite of reality.

You must be watching different news than I am.

Well, yeah. ;P
But people like to criticise the media down here too. It's like lawyers and politicians - people will unconditionally hate irregardless of circumstances, facts, any sort of knowledge on the subject, etc. It IS well-deserved criticism though: media folk are the worst, they're worse than a mutant lawyer-politician-taxman with ten eyes and slimy tentacles. Just not for any of the reasons given in this thread so far.

I can't imagine a situation in which mainstream media can exist solely to inform without descending into financial ruin, pricing customers out of consumption, or leeching off the institutions which they need to be independent of. But you can? Step up, i'm all ears :p

As I said, Arrington does a pretty good job.

[SkyPanda]

It wasn't a balanced article at all, it was a PR outlet for the scumbags that Arrington was busy destroying.

Destroying? He was busy destroying them? In his balanced article? I'm done here.
I can see where you're coming from in that muckraking, shit-digging and other mobilisation of ground and fecal matter is a sign of good journalism, but as I said before, i'll stick to getting both sides of the story, thanks.

As I said, Arrington does a pretty good job.

Arrington is not mainstream media. I was referring more to traditional print and television media. This "primary news media" you speak of:

I also think it's a disgrace that our primary news media sets out to entertain rather than to inform.

Did I manage to talk you out of this one?

[otters~1]

And as far as we could remember, media that was outside of governmental control was pretty much unprecedented in the 1770's.

I would like to draw the discussion back to this point. Can anyone think of any exceptions to this?

[scythe]

It wasn't a balanced article at all, it was a PR outlet for the scumbags that Arrington was busy destroying.

Destroying? He was busy destroying them? In his balanced article? I'm done here.
I can see where you're coming from in that muckraking, shit-digging and other mobilisation of ground and fecal matter is a sign of good journalism, but as I said before, i'll stick to getting both sides of the story, thanks.

But the New York Times didn't provide both sides of the story in anything resembling a balanced manner. See, that's what I'm getting at here. There aren't two sides to every issue. There are two sides to some issues. There are many sides to most issues. However, when it comes to the case of selling virtual currency on Facebook games, there is no evidence whatsoever that the companies at issue, Zynga, Playfish and Playdom, make their money through anything other than deception and scams.

The fact that you seem to believe otherwise indicates to me that, for the extent of this debate, you've been holding your fingers in your ears yelling "LA LA LA LA TECHCRUNCH IS BIASED", and haven't paid a cent of attention to the work Arrington did.

Which, frankly, means that you're not TechCrunch's target audience: you have no interest in reality, you'd rather read things that confirm your preconceived notions.

As I said, Arrington does a pretty good job.

Arrington is not mainstream media. I was referring more to traditional print and television media.

What does that have to do with anything? Arrington's website is profitable. You asked for a demonstration of profit potential, and I gave you one.

This "primary news media" you speak of:

I also think it's a disgrace that our primary news media sets out to entertain rather than to inform.

Did I manage to talk you out of this one?

Nah, I'm just not going to bother arguing my opinions. I'll argue facts before I argue philosophy, since philosophy requires more typing. Though Fox News Considered Harmful explains my viewpoint quite clearly.

[SkyPanda]

Sorry for the megapost, spoilers don't work on easterviking. :/

What does that have to do with anything? Arrington's website is profitable. You asked for a demonstration of profit potential, and I gave you one.

Aye, that you did. Unfortunately, your initial statement referred to 'primary news media' (your words) which I assume consists of more than just online media? Yeah?
So I don't think it makes sense to justify your criticism of media in general with an argument based purely on online media, which obviously doesn't have the same economic considerations as print and television media.

But the New York Times didn't provide both sides of the story in anything resembling a balanced manner.

Haha well actually it's slightly biased against the games, same as the TechCrunch article, just not as strongly. I'll work through it, cuz I do so love literary analysis. I've left the quote evidence out to cut down on post size, but evidence can be summoned if you do want to question any of the following:
The overall tone is a mix of disbelief and criticism, and that's established right from the start. There is the mentioning of the scams, which Jobs would have you believe isn't there. The article frequently mocks the players, but to be balanced, gives them a chance to justify. The article also invites serious criticism of the creators, but to be balanced, gives the creators a say and lets them claim that the scamming isn't a major part of the revenue. The creators come off as total dicks in the NYT article, and anybody who tells you otherwise, as if the article is PR for them or something, is bullshitting you.

As for the personal stuff about preconceived notions and whatever, please don't. That borders on "you're stupid because you disagree with me." I don't think that the TechCrunch article was bad, and I do think that the creators of the online games are indeed scammy douchebags. I don't, however, believe that the NYT article was bad at all, let alone bad enough to use as an argument against mainstream media, and I hope I've justified that enough to dispel any doubts about the location of my digits in relation to my ears, lol.

However, when it comes to the case of selling virtual currency on Facebook games, there is no evidence whatsoever that the companies at issue, Zynga, Playfish and Playdom, make their money through anything other than deception and scams.

Wait, what? Except for when people use real currency to purchase online content, right? At the very least the anecdotal evidence in the NYT article shows that people do use the legitimate money functions of the games, which provides revenue for the creators. Not to mention advertising, of the legitimate variety.

Though Fox News Considered Harmful explains my viewpoint quite clearly.

Persuasive article. :) If I had to, I'd possibly counter with
-there is an inherent bias present in /all/ media coverage, despite illusions and dreams to the contrary
-right wing media is balanced out with left wing media
-media institutions aren't required to shoot themselves in the foot when criticised

[Mute Monk]

I don't know why we're arguing so much about two organizations/people having two different opinions on something. It happens all the time. Like right here, even. So what if the New York Times doesn't report exactly what Arrington does? In fact, that's even better, because now there's some variety in the information you're getting on the subject.

If all news sources were exactly the same and reported exactly the same stories from exactly the same viewpoints, you'd get bored extremely fast. Not to mention the money loss involved for the news agencies.

Yes, major news is now a corporate lapdog. I'm sure even Arrington is quite glad about that, because if the Times reporters did their job, he wouldn't have such a good story.

And I laugh at both sides of the current argument, because both claim that their article was "balanced", "fair", and "honest", and yet if either side actually was, I'd start to doubt the human-ness of the authors. Everyone is biased, it just so happens some of them find a job with NYT and some find a blog to post their opinions.

[SkyPanda]

And I laugh at both sides of the current argument, because both claim that their article was "balanced", "fair", and "honest", and yet if either side actually was, I'd start to doubt the human-ness of the authors. Everyone is biased, it just so happens some of them find a job with NYT and some find a blog to post their opinions.

The problem with this is that people are biased to different degrees. Some writers make decent attempts to be neutral, and it can pay off with better, more valuable articles. Those who don't make even an attempt to be neutral will produce inferior quality articles. Because, as scythe said, most issues have many sides, an inbalanced article will usually be incomplete or misleading. I don't claim that the NYT article is completely neutral, but I do claim that it is sufficiently neutral to satisfy any reasonable standards for modern reporting, and that it can't be used as a case to criticise modern media.

[scythe]

What does that have to do with anything? Arrington's website is profitable. You asked for a demonstration of profit potential, and I gave you one.

Aye, that you did. Unfortunately, your initial statement referred to 'primary news media' (your words) which I assume consists of more than just online media? Yeah?
So I don't think it makes sense to justify your criticism of media in general with an argument based purely on online media, which obviously doesn't have the same economic considerations as print and television media.

That's silly. It's like complaining that I'm only talking about news media.

If online is the best business model for news, then let the news be online. In fairness, NPR does have to beg for money every thirty minutes. (NPR is not unbiased, and TechCrunch is anything but perfect. But I digress.)

But the New York Times didn't provide both sides of the story in anything resembling a balanced manner.

Haha well actually it's slightly biased against the games, same as the TechCrunch article, just not as strongly. I'll work through it, cuz I do so love literary analysis. I've left the quote evidence out to cut down on post size, but evidence can be summoned if you do want to question any of the following:
The overall tone is a mix of disbelief and criticism, and that's established right from the start. There is the mentioning of the scams, which Jobs would have you believe isn't there. The article frequently mocks the players, but to be balanced, gives them a chance to justify. The article also invites serious criticism of the creators, but to be balanced, gives the creators a say and lets them claim that the scamming isn't a major part of the revenue. The creators come off as total dicks in the NYT article, and anybody who tells you otherwise, as if the article is PR for them or something, is bullshitting you.

Wait, the New York Times article is biased because it presents gaming as an unproductive waste of time?

Please be kidding.

As for the personal stuff about preconceived notions and whatever, please don't. That borders on "you're stupid because you disagree with me." I don't think that the TechCrunch article was bad, and I do think that the creators of the online games are indeed scammy douchebags. I don't, however, believe that the NYT article was bad at all, let alone bad enough to use as an argument against mainstream media, and I hope I've justified that enough to dispel any doubts about the location of my digits in relation to my ears, lol.

sigh...

and I do think that the creators of the online games are indeed scammy douchebags.

So, if:

• the creators of the games are scammy douchebags (as shown in the confession and the video)

• Arrington does extensive research to prove that the creators of the games (Zynga, in particular) are scammy douchebags

• Arrington publishes an article about how the creators of the games are scammy douchebags

ergo, Arrington is being biased?

I'll just "wat" this and move on.

I don't, however, believe that the NYT article was bad at all, let alone bad enough to use as an argument against mainstream media

It is not, in itself, a case against the entirety of the mainstream media. It is a case study. This sort of thing is interesting because it's possible for someone like Steve Jobs to analyze it in detail.

Steve Jobs makes the implicit claim that there is a general pattern that follows this example; for his readers to determine the accuracy of his claim, they'd have to draw on their general experience with the mainstream media, with online "new" media, and their own personal assessment of Jobs as a trustworthy individual.

This is where the concept of journalistic integrity is absolutely pivotal. It's also precisely the concept whose absence Jobs is lamenting. And for that, Bob, we turn to Wikipedia. Wikipedia, tell us about this phenomenon.

However, when it comes to the case of selling virtual currency on Facebook games, there is no evidence whatsoever that the companies at issue, Zynga, Playfish and Playdom, make their money through anything other than deception and scams.

Wait, what? Except for when people use real currency to purchase online content, right? At the very least the anecdotal evidence in the NYT article shows that people do use the legitimate money functions of the games, which provides revenue for the creators. Not to mention advertising, of the legitimate variety.

Excuse me. I meant to say "the majority of their money", or even "the vast majority of their money", both of which are very true.

Obviously some people will pay for anything; hence the proliferation of sites like this.

Though Fox News Considered Harmful explains my viewpoint quite clearly.

Persuasive article. :) If I had to, I'd possibly counter with
-there is an inherent bias present in /all/ media coverage, despite illusions and dreams to the contrary

Ah, yes, the insidious "don't piss off the advertisers" bias. 'Course, Fox stomped all over that one and now nobody wants to advertise on Glenn Beck's show.

Moreover, there are quite a few mostly honest outlets and there were more before Fox News. It's not the presence of bias but the magnitude of distortion that really ruins the news. That is to say, it's not about bias, it's about lies. Bias is unavoidable; distortion is not.

-right wing media is balanced out with left wing media

The whole article was about refuting this. If you're still saying this, I'd have to ask you to reread it. It was nice when everything wasn't right-wing or left-wing.
As a side note, there are way more than two viewpoints on many issues.


Anyway, if I might make another analogy: News media being purely profit-motivated would be like the medical industry being purely profit-motivated.

[SkyPanda]

If online is the best business model for news, then let the news be online. In fairness, NPR does have to beg for money every thirty minutes. (NPR is not unbiased, and TechCrunch is anything but perfect. But I digress.)

Interesting thought, it would certainly do much to address the problems of economic issues affecting media content. The internet has been fantastic for media in general - China's a perfect example of that.

Wait, the New York Times article is biased because it presents gaming as an unproductive waste of time?

It's slightly biased because the overall tone and content is critical of the game system, the gamers and the creators. However, it is balanced enough to be a poor case for an attack on news media.
I don't like repeating myself and you're offering nothing but incredulity, which as you well know means nil unless it's accompanied by an argument. If I may make a suggestion, the obvious option is to provide evidence that the article is more biased than I claim it to be. But you can't, because i'm right. ;P I therefore request that you withdraw your criticism of the NYT article.

It is not, in itself, a case against the entirety of the mainstream media. It is a case study. This sort of thing is interesting because it's possible for someone like Steve Jobs to analyze it in detail.
Steve Jobs makes the implicit claim that there is a general pattern that follows this example; for his readers to determine the accuracy of his claim, they'd have to draw on their general experience with the mainstream media, with online "new" media, and their own personal assessment of Jobs as a trustworthy individual.

Well so far i've proven Jobs to be maliciously misleading and the NYT article to be very adequate. It is not a good case study. It does not warrant criticism. 'Drawing on general experience with mainstream media' does not change those facts. If you want to criticise mainstream media then you should do so with an article that actually shares some of the claimed problems of mainstream media.

Bob

Heh, close enough. your servant :)

Excuse me. I meant to say "the majority of their money", or even "the vast majority of their money", both of which are very true.

At the moment it's Arrington's word against Pinkus, unless you have some quarterly reports at hand that you haven't yet brought to the table. I'm calling unsubstantiated statement.
Whether or not people are silly to pay for online content is not the issue.

Anyway, if I might make another analogy: News media being purely profit-motivated would be like the medical industry being purely profit-motivated.

Can I head you off here and save you some pain by pointing out that the medical industry is funded by the government, for this very reason. Which is not an option available to news media, if you value independent media that can effectively hold the government accountable.

[scythe]

It's slightly biased because the overall tone and content is critical of the game system, the gamers and the creators. However, it is balanced enough to be a poor case for an attack on news media.
I don't like repeating myself and you're offering nothing but incredulity, which as you well know means nil unless it's accompanied by an argument. If I may make a suggestion, the obvious option is to provide evidence that the article is more biased than I claim it to be. But you can't, because i'm right. ;P I therefore request that you withdraw your criticism of the NYT article.

No, I was acting incredulous because I thought we all agreed that gaming is an unproductive waste of time. Which, with a few obvious exceptions such as combat training games and puzzle games used to prevent and treat Alzheimer's disease, it is.

I don't claim the NYT article is biased per se. I claim it says nothing when there are things that ought to be said and in doing so is worthless.

It is not, in itself, a case against the entirety of the mainstream media. It is a case study. This sort of thing is interesting because it's possible for someone like Steve Jobs to analyze it in detail.
Steve Jobs makes the implicit claim that there is a general pattern that follows this example; for his readers to determine the accuracy of his claim, they'd have to draw on their general experience with the mainstream media, with online "new" media, and their own personal assessment of Jobs as a trustworthy individual.

Well so far i've proven Jobs to be maliciously misleading and the NYT article to be very adequate. It is not a good case study. It does not warrant criticism. 'Drawing on general experience with mainstream media' does not change those facts. If you want to criticise mainstream media then you should do so with an article that actually shares some of the claimed problems of mainstream media.

Jacques Hadamard proved the prime number theorem. Nobody in this thread has proven very much at all.

I think I'll link Steve's own response, and for convenience, here's Matthew 7:3-5:

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Excuse me. I meant to say "the majority of their money", or even "the vast majority of their money", both of which are very true.

At the moment it's Arrington's word against Pinkus, unless you have some quarterly reports at hand that you haven't yet brought to the table. I'm calling unsubstantiated statement.
Whether or not people are silly to pay for online content is not the issue.

http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/11/02/zy ... rom-games/
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/11/06/zy ... s-faceboo/
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/11/01/ho ... onfession/

Believe me, I tried to do honest optimization—running legitimate flower ads on Valentines Day, Walmart ads on Cyber Monday, auto insurance offers on car racing games, and so forth. For months, I went through over 150 offers across a dozen networks, systematically testing offers, ad copy, targeting, creative templates, and so forth. I couldn’t get a single one to work. And in a previous life I worked on Yahoo!’s internal analytics team—our job was to optimize traffic.

I finally came to this realization: People on Facebook won’t pay for anything. They don’t have credit cards, they don’t want credit cards, and they are not interested in shopping. But you can trick them into doing one of three things:

[various scams follow]

Nah.

Anyway, if I might make another analogy: News media being purely profit-motivated would be like the medical industry being purely profit-motivated.

Can I head you off here and save you some pain by pointing out that the medical industry is funded by the government, for this very reason. Which is not an option available to news media, if you value independent media that can effectively hold the government accountable.

I could pull the whole "blah blah Wikipedia Project blah", but that's not really fair. WikiNews isn't any good anyway.
there's more to be written here. I have things that need to be done. Will finish later.

[SkyPanda]

Nobody in this thread has proven very much at all.

Well I've proven Jobs was lying! The NYT article quality is a matter of opinion- the fact that Jobs lied is not. If you absolutely must hate on the NYT article, then you should at least know that you're accepting the arguments of a man who uses some very underhand tactics.

I don't claim the NYT article is biased per se. I claim it says nothing when there are things that ought to be said and in doing so is worthless.

What does it say /nothing/ about? You aren't trying to pull a Steve Jobs here are you? :o
If you look at the NYT article, they don't exactly run onto a second page with any of their points. That brevity is consistent throughout the article. It ain't a fluff piece, it's a short piece. People who are deeply engrossed in the scandal that's been rocking the advertising-in-online-gaming-on-social-networking-sites world can go onto dedicated IT sites like TechCrunch to get the full details. That's why when your newspaper is delivered, it isn't the thickness and weight of a slab of concrete. I think this ties back to what I said earlier about the responsibility for media content actually lying with us, not the media. Major media companies alter their coverage based on feedback- if that article on online gaming was all they had to say on the matter, it's probably because nobody cares.

[otters~1]

It ain't a fluff piece, it's a short piece. People who are deeply engrossed in the scandal that's been rocking the advertising-in-online-gaming-on-social-networking-sites world can go onto dedicated IT sites like TechCrunch to get the full details. That's why when your newspaper is delivered, it isn't the thickness and weight of a slab of concrete. I think this ties back to what I said earlier about the responsibility for media content actually lying with us, not the media. Major media companies alter their coverage based on feedback- if that article on online gaming was all they had to say on the matter, it's probably because nobody cares.

I definitely agree with this. There's a large disparity between the two sources you guys are debating. One's the NYT, for God's sake, and the other's just a tech website. Of course we know which one will give more detail.