Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Slashdot Asks: The Washington Post Says It Publishes Something Every Minute -- How Much Is Too Much? (washingtonian.com)

Posted by msmash on from the we-want-to-know dept.

Media outlets are increasingly vying for your attention. But they are also feeding Google's algorithm. Some of them churn hundreds of news articles every day, hoping to offer a diverse range of articles to their readers, and also increase their "search space." The Washington Post is currently running a promotional offer -- letting people get a six-month digital subscription for $10 (pretty good if you ask me). But the Washington Post also mentions that is now publishes a new piece of content every minute. That's like 1,440 articles, videos and other forms of content in one single day. This raises a question: how much content is too much content? How many stories can a person possibly find time to read in a day? Do you feel that perhaps outlets should cut down on the number of things they publish? Or are you happy with the way things are?

87 comments

  1. Every minute is too much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That's too much.

    1. Re:Every minute is too much by xamax · · Score: 2

      Agreed!! We can hardly keep up with this site.

    2. Re:Every minute is too much by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Except that people have different interests. If you have 30 categories of news then 1440 / 30 = a news story every half hour if you are only interested in say "Sports" or "Business". If you're interested in Linux and Programming I bet that only represents probably a story every couple hours at best.

      Saying a story every 10 minutes is too much is like saying Netflix has too much content because nobody could ever watch 100,000 hours of television. It's true, but it ignores the fact that there isn't a perfect venn diagram of interest.

      The WaPost has 740 staff writers. So that's only a story every 4 hours/writer. If they gave each writer 5 minutes to write a story I would worry about quality but 4 hours is plenty to make some calls and interview people.

    3. Re: Every minute is too much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only a story every 4 hours ? Lol. What's the point of reading that kind of crap.

    4. Re: Every minute is too much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of stories are being written by computer software that reads a wide variety of sources and simply slices and dices the content. Instant (and continous it seems) echo chamber. Pf#t...

    5. Re: Every minute is too much by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      Only every 4 hours ? Lol. What's the point of reading that kind of crap.

      There were several news stories posted within an hour of the train crash this morning. 4 hours is plenty to write out the who-what-when-where. Not enough time to write a Rolling Stone expose but plenty of time to cover "news".

      "A train crashed today into a crowded station. "It was awful," said Bob. At this time it's not believed to be a terrorist attack but investigators have only just begun piecing through the evidence. About 100 people were injured and as of writing there are no reports of fatalities although there were numerous seriously injured."

      There, that's a reasonably insightful breaking news summary that took about 3 minutes to write. Give someone 80x as long and a couple hours to ask questions at a press conference and you've got a thorough reporting of the day's big news event.

    6. Re: Every minute is too much by justthinkit · · Score: 1

      What are you talking about? That is just a single story every 267,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Planck seconds. Clearly we could be publishing a quarter million, million, million, million, million, million, million, million times more often. Some people have no sense of perspective. Frustrating!

      --
      I come here for the love
    7. Re:Every minute is too much by Blaskowicz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The bad thing with that is even if you try to do the "right thing" by reading an internet newspaper, you end up in a filtering bubble by only looking up a couple categories you're interested in.

      This makes an actual newspaper vastly superior. Even if you skim over or ignore swathes of it, all of the content is there and instantly available. Once in a while you might read something in the "useless" culural sections or among some content you usually don't give a damn about.

      A newspaper is a collection of a few dozen reflective, zero power 4K displays that you can bend and fold at will, and where you don't even have to scroll. Scrolling is so 500 B.C.!

      The shame is newspapers have shrunk and lowered in quality and merely echo propaganda like TV, radio and internet news sites do. Corporate power and advertisement make them trivially susceptible to pressure. I'm not sure that in my country there is any good daily newspaper left. E.g. war stories are the cartoon-like version where our authorities call for us to be outraged about the bombings of civilians by Russia and Syria, but starving people hit by artillery don't officially exist if they're not in the right areas. It's only a war crime when Syrians defend themselves, not when the West or Israel or Al Qaida does it.
      Also, everyone is unemployed, underemployed or underpaid, and tobacco increased 2x in price, food increases despite the zero inflation. So they arbitrate between a newspaper and bread or a newspaper and smokes, and decline to buy the newspaper.
      Internet news sites are the shit end of the stick, like video games replaced going outside and free or pirated movies replaced the theater.

    8. Re:Every minute is too much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nobody could ever watch 100,000 hours of television.

      4 hours a day for 68.5 years? Challenge accepted.

    9. Re:Every minute is too much by BoRegardless · · Score: 1

      I need an AI app to filter out the crud and look for significant items; very few items per day.

    10. Re: Every minute is too much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That implies that the content is worthwhile. I don't want to read a report on how makeup is sexist, or the latest twitter trends, or how they aren't sexist because they have a nearly all female staff. The kind of articles I want to read require days of research, and often require a specialist to write. How can you have quality insightful articles when you've turned your company into an factory for articles. Who is verifying all those sources, who is fact checking? How much of all that is twitter posts?

    11. Re:Every minute is too much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "but 4 hours is plenty to make some calls and interview people"

      For rubbish stories, perhaps. Or an article with 3 paragraphs that simply restates existing info (with the bulk of the writing being an intro and "playful" exit lines).

      4 hours is reasonable assuming the story is not complex, the article is short, key info is disseminated and corroborated by others, and the interviewees are readily available. Then you still need to get it written, have it proofread, etc.

      Or, just crap out a bunch of small articles that're repackaged from around the web.

  2. Cookieless browsing is free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    From the synopsis: "The Washington Post is currently running a promotional offer -- letting people get a six-month digital subscription for $10 (pretty good if you ask me)."

    Browsing the Washington Post in your browser's "privacy" mode is free.

    1. Re:Cookieless browsing is free by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      From the article âoenew piece of digital content every minute.â, so that careful wording means bloody ads are including, as well as the cycling of ads. If fact if you are willing to waste sufficient time, you can see how they have skipped around that detail whilst trying to create the impression they are just talking about news articles et al.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  3. Simple by viperidaenz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Don't read the drivel that passes for news these days and you'll only have a couple of articles to read a day at most.

    1. Re:Simple by somenickname · · Score: 3, Funny

      Don't read the drivel that passes for news these days and you'll only have a couple of articles to read a day at most.

      What kind of un-American insanity is this? You *need* to be bombarded with poorly researched, misinterpreted, patently false information on a daily basis. Usually it's better to ingest this information in the form of "experts" yelling at each other but, if you've already seen all of todays yelling matches, you might as well turn to the authority that is churning out 1440 news articles a day. I mean, otherwise, how do you know who to fear/hate/love? HOW?!

    2. Re:Simple by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      The good kind, I'm not American.

    3. Re:Simple by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Usually it's better to ingest this information in the form of "experts" yelling at each other

      Careful, this is what leads to post-factual politics and disasters like Brexit. Once people decide that all experts are just partisan agenda pushers, unreliable and untrustworthy, all they have left is their own gut feeling. They make decisions based on what they see in their immediate surroundings and what politicians tell them.

      The last thing you want is people thinking that their feelings are more important that reality.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:Simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See, this is actually the problem. You have no credibility because you deny the things people actually see and experience and tell them that they're crazy and everything they believe is not based on fact. I know, I know. You're the only intelligent person in the world and nothing else is based on fact.

      > The last thing you want is people thinking that their feelings are more important that reality.

      I'll echo that back at you. Look at how many facts get "refuted" by people declaring them unpalatable (Islamophobic, etc.) instead of as incorrect.

      You don't realize it because the media is so consolidated right now, but the world is turning against you. Just keep pushing, go ahead. Brexit is only the tip. Treat everyone else as a moron at your peril.

  4. Netfilx.... by bobbied · · Score: 1

    Netflix is TOO much....

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    1. Re:Netfilx.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet, too little. Can you find classic 70's sci-fi movies from every country specific Netflix selection? Automatic curation might help the issue for WP, though. A liberal, conservative, environmental, science matters, sports rules, globalistic, culture first and other news collections could form numerous newspapers within a newspaper. Assuming the necessary quality is there, of course.

  5. as far as I am concerned by ooloorie · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Anything that traditional media corporations publish is "too much" as far as I'm concerned: they are money-making enterprises that will say whatever it takes to maximize their profit and power, and that usually involves a combination of: (1) trolling the public and causing discord, (2) spreading FUD, (3) kowtowing to politicians and the government. What these media corporations don't do is care about your well being or give your reliable and unbiased information.

    1. Re:as far as I am concerned by PMuse · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Newspapers are also extensive, experienced intelligence gathering organizations. They look for news. They do a better job than most of identifying stuff that matters. And then, they tell people about it. Some of the bad actors out there are quite good at hiding; it takes time and skill to sift the nuggets of information from the muck.

      Yes, yes, publications also produce churn, listicles, FUD, etc. That's a minor annoyance compared to the value of having dedicated investigators on the job.

      --
      "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
    2. Re:as far as I am concerned by houghi · · Score: 1

      Years ago I was watching a lot of TV at night. Asa there was only drivel, out of sheer boredom I watched TV news from Germany from 30 years ago. I speak German and live in Europe.
      What I was amazed about was that it was almost identical as the current news. Not so much the presentation, but the stories.
      The only thing that had changed where the names and locations. Since then I have not followed any news channel. And I must say that I am less stressed.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    3. Re:as far as I am concerned by agentblack01 · · Score: 1

      Relevant comic: https://biblioklept.files.word...

    4. Re:as far as I am concerned by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Newspapers are also extensive, experienced intelligence gathering organizations. They look for news. They do a better job than most of identifying stuff that matters. And then, they tell people about it. Some of the bad actors out there are quite good at hiding; it takes time and skill to sift the nuggets of information from the muck.

      What matters first of all is their motivations. The more powerful an intelligence organization is at gathering information, the more effective it is at screwing people over. The STASI and the Gestapo were actually quite good at intelligence gathering, and as a consequence were very effective at screwing people over.

      So, in a sense, you are right: newspapers gather "intelligence" on people, a lot of it simply embarrassing and irrelevant dirt, and publish it, largely to further their own political and commercial agenda. What they mostly don't do is provide insight into, and educate people about, science, technology, statistics, or economics; that's because newspapers are staffed by people who are great at uncovering dirt on people but are ignorant about almost everything else. Science coverage in the news consists largely of hype and quoting multiple people with impressive academic titles.

    5. Re:as far as I am concerned by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      The distinction between serious content and amusement is the wrong distinction. Newspapers publish self-serving corporate crap even when they are trying to be serious. For example, on some science or technology issue, they may write a perfectly reasonable sounding article, but their selection of experts and quotes may be biased, often probably unconsciously. Books aren't burned or banned, publishers simply don't even publish them. Etc. Furthermore, there isn't some nefarious master plan to "control" the population; management, journalists, and editors simply act in their own self-interest, like everybody else; the problem is that the self-interest of these people isn't to give readers good information, it is to sell more newspapers, sell more ads, advance their own careers, win prizes, etc.

      I still think Postman's ideas are well worth reflecting upon, but I think he often combines a good cultural insight with a flawed analysis and flawed implications for how to address the problem.

  6. Quality not quantity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just read 5-10 articles a day, period. Does not matter to if they publish one every minute or hour, as long as the quality gets better. News media quality has been in abyss for a long time, now highlighted by internet. WaPo is one of the better ones but still far from ideal.

    1. Re:Quality not quantity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read 150 headlines a day, mostly from google news. Why read the story, it says the same thing it said yesterday. In any even, it doesn't directly affect my life. Yeah it's sad that some 6 year old girl got kidnapped, but unless I did it, I do not see how it could possible have any impact on my life.

  7. It's junk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Most "news" today is high on hype, opinion, and A or B style reporting. Give me an old fashioned investigation in search of truth rather than opinion A vs opinion B and I'll hand over cash for it. Too many mockingbirds and editorial shills in mainstream news for my taste.

  8. going by google news feed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Most of them are editorials.

  9. 0.004 cents per article? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Still more than it's worth.

  10. Quantity over Quality... by dejitaru · · Score: 2

    Obligatory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  11. Slashdot Asks by ChoGGi · · Score: 1

    If we have an Ask Slashdot category, do we also get one for these posts?

  12. They've found that it's easier and quicker... by Nova+Express · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...just to republish the talking points directly from the Clinton campaign, without all that wasteful middleman editing and rewriting. Saves everyone time and money...

    --
    Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)

    http://www.lawrenceperson.com/

    1. Re:They've found that it's easier and quicker... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Washington Post and CNN have both gone full retard this election season. You expect it from places like USAToday, MSNBC, and NPR but the Post used to be a good newspaper.

    2. Re:They've found that it's easier and quicker... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Et tu, Brute?

    3. Re:They've found that it's easier and quicker... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find this comment odd.

      I've looked through quite a few of the Hillary emails posted on WikiLeaks, looking to confirm/debunk what people said were in there. The thing I found amazing is about a third of them that were not just "call me at 8 at home" were talking about "Wapo" articles. Someone at WaPo was giving Hillary people the stories they were running the day before if it included Clinton at all and asking for comments.

      So you claim they were better, but they were the ones working directly with Clinton and coordinating stories with her while she was Secretary of State. I didn't see the same thing with any other news outlets, even the NYT. I just assumed WaPo was the publication done by the DNC. I have no provable information after she left SOS if it continued or not.

    4. Re:They've found that it's easier and quicker... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the voters that have gone full retard. The media is just profiting off of their fears with whatever bias they choose to support.

    5. Re:They've found that it's easier and quicker... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The DNC was selling access to the WaPo party in a way their own lawyers had forbidden. I consider them to be basically an arm of the DNC at this point.

  13. "New" Content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd wager that every time time they revise an existing, evolving story to add a new paragraph they are calling this "new" content. There will be far fewer distinct stories than 1440 a day. You are not obliged to even attempt reading everything they offer in any case: only enough to consider you have had your money's worth.

  14. Yeah but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They limit the number of free articles. So who cares. I'm not paying for "news".

    I'd rather smell Jeff Bezos' farts for money.

  15. Not our job. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

    When you start losing readers because there is too much content, it's too much. However, it's not our responsibility to tell you how to do your job. I'm certain there are people that specialize in studying these type of things that you could contract. #FuckYouPayMe

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  16. That depends... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

    I know that "That depends" is the second most frustrating answer(after "yes and no"); but it is true here.

    Across what geographic area, set of topics, etc. are these minutely articles distributed?

    If you consider a global scale, and a fairly wide variety of interests(not necessarily serious niche stuff; but all the sections that a major Sunday print newspaper traditionally had); one article a minute is downright patchy coverage.

    If you are talking a local news outlet; or a "just the foreign events large enough to be relevant" offering; it strongly suggests that they are really, really playing hard with the 'minimum publishable unit' concept.

    If the once-a-minute number is across a whole stable of publications catering to different interests; then it might be the case that once you remove the celebrity gossip they actually only publish every ten minutes; Given how few genuinely just-a-local-paper operations exist these days, the quoted publication rate is probably across a media empire that isn't expected to appeal to any single individual: it'll probably have local news for more places than any one person could live/work; cultural tidbits across more fields any one person cares about; politics from around the world, and so on.

    I'd argue that there are really two better questions: Ignore the stated total output; and ask "How much are they publishing that I find worth reading?" and "Is their focus on speed killing their ability to focus?" The first question is obvious: you don't enjoy news by the pound or by the word; you enjoy news by how much you actually feel like reading. The second is slightly trickier: Mere 'data' are pretty easy to come by. The sorts of news reports that you get when you give an experienced reporter plenty of time and room to dig into a matter he is experienced with are much less so. If an outfit's metrics-driven chase after viral listicles has caused them to cancel all reporting that can't be reworded from AP feeds by interns within 20 minutes; they've hollowed themselves out and it barely matters how fast they churn out "content" because none of it will add up to anything. If they just generate a lot of material because they have a lot of people reporting; that's a different matter.

  17. Like the CNN model by krelvin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Everything is BREAKING NEWS even if it happened yesterday or the day before. Reporting on incidents before there are any real known facts, having EXPERTS come on and speculate on what MIGHT have happened or not without anything to really base an opinion on yet.

    Not really news... entertainment for many, boring and shut off for me.

    1. Re:Like the CNN model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someday there will be an AI service that processes each CNN Breaking News alert and does a diff -u.

    2. Re:Like the CNN model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not on this site. "News" is two days old or greater. When crap like the Daily Mail is putting out tech issues over a day earlier, you know this site is all but dead.

  18. too much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Reduce it to statistics.

  19. Actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is one story I'm still waiting to see the Washington Post write. And they're in a unique spot, because they can write it based on first hand experience!

    See, one of the leaked emails (damn Rooskies) showed the DNC secretly selling access to the WaPo party... but this was on the hush hush because the lawyers would not allow it. Probably something about under-the-table campaign contributions and whatnot, you know, pesky laws that nobody really cares about anyway.

    They could tell us all about the party if they wanted to, based on their own email.

    So, how about it WaPo? Nobody else is reporting this one....

  20. How ironical... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...posting a story to comment on how one media outlet is posting too many stories.

    1. Re:How ironical... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Irregardless, they have a point.

  21. Click farm by somenickname · · Score: 2

    So, basically, the Washington Post is proudly declaring that it's just a click farm. Churning out nonsense to get page impressions.

    1. Re:Click farm by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      You just described every piece of media ever used, ever. I wrote a book just to get people to buy it and read it. Warner Brothers made that movie just to get people to go and watch it. Someone writes a blog in the hope to get page impressions.

      Just seeing a big number and using the word "farm" doesn't make your comment insightful and doesn't make The Washington Posts' any different to what it has always been.

  22. increasing clickbait isn't journalism by mschuyler · · Score: 1

    And they want you to pay for online access. But increasing their rate does not ensure nor imply quality. Woodstein is not writing these articles. A tremendous number of them are short--about a paragraph long--and completely inconsequential. Look how many of then are "lists," for example. You may as well read what's on the back of cereal boxes. You might get more content. Another problem is all these sites repeating each other. I get a lot of the same news on Drudge and Above Top Secret (ATS: a cranky conspiracy site) as I do on Slashdot. Everyone is now a "news aggregator" so they just copy each other. It's especially bad on sites such as ATS and Slashdot because both rely on "user-provided content." There really isn't that much more hard news available; it's just that there are more places to click on the same lame stories.

    --
    How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
  23. A new ad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every few minutes they publish a new advertisement!

  24. 99% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    90% is crap, 4% is undercover advertising and the good 1% gets lost in a sea of crap.

    1. Re:99% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm really curious about what the other 5% is. I mean, is it stuff that's vaguely relevant, but not actually good? Is it editorials, so not news or advertising, but it may be well-written enough to read?

  25. pah. amateurs! Daily Mail : 2,150 posts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    according to today's PopBitch newsletter..

    'Yesterday, in the 24 hours from
          midnight to midnight, the Daily
          Mail's website published 2,150
          posts."

  26. Not all 1,440 pieces of content would interest you by Flytrap · · Score: 1

    1,440 articles, videos and other pieces of content would be too much for any one person to try to read or watch in a single day.

    It is also highly unlikely that any one person could be interested in all the articles, videos and other pieces of content, in all the categories and sub-categories offered by the Washington Post. So the real number of articles, videos and other pieces of content published that one would want to read would probably be mush much smaller

  27. Worst Part by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    About 75% of that is Clinton propaganda.

  28. "a new piece of content every minute." by Cornwallis · · Score: 1

    And 99.9 percent of it is absolute crap that isn't worth paying for. The Graham's must be rolling over in their graves to see how hard the WaPo has fallen.
    Back in the 70s they were the standard bearor - the Nixon stuff and all but now... they're no better that Yahoo or the NYPost or the Enquirer.

  29. Globalist Jeff Bezos has to bash Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    as many times as possible. The Big Brother, ass-kissing jackass can't help it.

    1. Re:Globalist Jeff Bezos has to bash Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, as if Drumpf doesn't present the biggest, most fucking moronic, misogynist, foot-in-mouth, lying and within minutes denying, orange Orangutan with a toupè (sorry Orangutans) target there has EVER BEEN in MSM.

  30. Ideal Ratio by Marquis231 · · Score: 1

    Quality over quantity, please! It's already enough work separating the wheat from the chaff without publishers working to multiply their daily output in a bid to spoof search algorithms.

    1440 pieces of content in one day is ridiculous, nobody has time to read even 1% of that unless you exclusively read the Washington Post.

  31. Other sites that post things every minute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Craigslist
    Reddit
    Slashdot circa 1998
    facebook.com/toystory2wasok
    MSDN

  32. Quality or Quantity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Personally, I rather just read the Bible. The good book is all the news we need and still relevant 3,463 years later. The New Testament is a tad too liberal for my tastes, but I won't judge as long as you believe in Jesus.

  33. "Entertainment News" by CloudDrakken · · Score: 1

    Sadly almost all news outlets have become "entertainment news" outlets and it's basically brainwashing and directing conversations to such ephemeral and mundane things that by the looks of it we're going to run out of water and clean air if we don't change our priorities quickly. Quality over quantity

  34. WaPo's PublishPoop by MSTCrow5429 · · Score: 1

    I spend most of my time reading a high-quality news-heavy newspaper, and then assorted stories from various online sources. And not by visiting a media frontpage. I don't have time for clickbait, and serious well-researched stories can't be pumped out once a minute. And you're not going to understand much if all you read is news articles.

    --
    Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
  35. Infinite Weasels by PMuse · · Score: 1

    It is irrelevant whether an infinite number of monkeys posting everything they saw to the net would eventually produce every important news item that professional media organizations now produce.

    1. We would never manage to find the important stories amidst the infinite amount of crap they would post.
    2. We don't actually have an infinite number of monkeys.

    Accordingly, it is necessary to employ a few professional, eagle-eyed reporters to keep the weasels of the world under control.

    --
    "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
  36. Is 1,440 a lot? by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 2

    1 per minute = 1,440 per day.
    Pre internet, how many individual articles, editorials, comics, ads were in a typical daily print edition of the New York Times? I would venture that 1,000+ would not be out of the question.

  37. I bet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your fun at partys

  38. First the radio went ... by jodokast98 · · Score: 1

    because there was just too much Nickleback and other crap repeated ad nauseam. Then the TV went ... because there was just too much "Reality TV" and other crap repeated ad nauseam. And now we have the internet, where there is just too much clickbait and other crap repeated ad nauseam. There are no more bastions with which I can't be inundated with mindless drivel. It's no wonder we're becoming less intelligent over the years. Who flopped a steamer in the gene pool?

  39. Lets start a pool... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How many days until the Washington Post's A+ journalism leads to a breakup of Amazon as a monopoly?

  40. It is not the amount by Archfeld · · Score: 1

    The amount doesn't really matter, it is the relevancy and quality of said content. Obviously they have to post a certain amount of content to stay relevant, and profitable, and support the framework of the weight of the ads they are supporting, but just measuring by the word like a freshman essay is not valid.

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
  41. News Outlets == News Aggregator by uh.band.duhn · · Score: 1

    I prefer aggregation myself. But pay for profit if you'd like.

  42. I bet you miss Dubya by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're absolutely right, we need another affable, actor politician, like George W. Bush. Sure, he was stage managed by men from behind the scenes. And he was a successful businessman, thanks to Saudi, and Dubai money. But damn, he was a friendly guy, and his misquotes were funny. Don't mind the 'Democracy' in Iraq, and Afghanistan. Or, that the Syrian freedom fighters just want democracy, and need our help to beat the evil, chemical weapon using Assad. They'll be friendly with the Yazidis. Honest.

    Don't worry, Jeb and Rubio will be back around for 2020.

  43. Media has poor comment moderation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some websites seems to have a commentary fields, that ends up having thousands of comments for any one article, that is bad, something media should do something about, by allowing all kinds of sorting of comments and maybe something else to make things more readable.

    Online newspapers also tend to have this censorship regime, that doesn't make any sense. One would expect them to not only make a change and alert the user about that change, but instead, posts and comments are nuked.

    Practices like Aftenposten's demanding personal identifiable information on every post should be scorned, because having to put your name onto every comment becomes a bad thing once you want to add your personal experience with something. Having to ID yourself in a comment field makes you refrain from ever visiting the commentary field on that website, because it stifles your interest in expressing yourself, and getting involved.

  44. When No Candidate Ever RTFA by retroworks · · Score: 1

    When every candidate and everyone on every talking head program sounds like a /. Frist Poster. Some Editors gotta wake up and downvote some articles.

    --
    Gently reply
  45. Too Much Garbage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Much of what they publish online is crap; poorly written, poorly edited, and with some real stretches in logic. It's funny to see the comments on many of the articles taking the writer to task for poor performance.

  46. just because it is published doesn't mean you have by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    to read it. You can be a "completist" for a game. You can't be for life. You can't learn all you want, watch all the content you might want, work in as many areas as you might find interesting etc.

  47. Bull poopie by holophrastic · · Score: 1

    I'm sure they miss more minutes than they hit. I'm sure they mean to average one per minute -- 1'440 per day. That's very different.

  48. Really so much? by kenh · · Score: 1

    But the Washington Post also mentions that is now publishes a new piece of content every minute. That's like 1,440 articles, videos and other forms of content in one single day. This raises a question: how much content is too much content? How many stories can a person possibly find time to read in a day? Do you feel that perhaps outlets should cut down on the number of things they publish? Or are you happy with the way things are?

    You don't have to read everything they post, and they don't expect you to.

    I wonder how many "items" (aka articles, columns, editorials, etc.) the New York Times publishes in a given day? How many items are in the daily edition? The Sunday edition? I suspect few people read every item in the NYT - daily or Sunday edition.

    --
    Ken
  49. Screw 'em by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Washington Compost is worthless whether it's digital or dead trees.

  50. What do they count? by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

    What is the bar for what they consider new content? Things like near-real-time updates of sports box scores could inflate the count without much routine work once the scripts are in place to make them happen.

  51. Washington Compost by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

    Now with an even worse case of the shits, right from the White House.
    No middle man.