Ben Bagdikian wrote a book called "The Information Machines" about personalized news circa 1970.

One chapter in the middle of it makes the most damning indictment of the concept of "news" that I've ever seen.

At that time, the editor of a local newspaper had to look at thousands of news wire article that he could run and had only a few seconds to evaluate an article and decide if they want to put it in or not.

Fast forward to 2011 and a small media market like Tompkins County. We've got a daily paper, the Ithaca Journal, which seems to get a page thinner every month. Most newswire news is now in a section with USA Today branding, and the local news in the Ithaca Journal is largely about crime -- this works because a single crime can generate a large number of news stories: there is a report, an arrest, an indictment, an interminable trial, a conviction, appeals, imprisonment, parole hearings, a release, etc.

The serious newspaper in Tompkins is a weekly paper, the Tompkins Weekly, which is actually profitable. It covers things that are going on in the area that are ongoing... And that's the point: most of the things that are important are ongoing processes, not event. The fact is that there just aren't enough significant events in an area of 100,000 people to fill a daily. And who needs wire news stories in a local paper when you get them online?

"News" in the conventional sense is entertainment; even if you're watching the events in Egypt on Al Jazeera, it's probably something that isn't going to change your behavior or make a real difference in your life.

In all honesty, reading this makes me want the writer to actually spend some time reading grocery store counter magazines or cosmopolitan, or even watching 5 straight hours of fox news or reality shows or whatever goes completely against his values.

Truth is, no one would come back to a website that showed them uninteresting things.

I think it's worth observing, since several comments here seem to be assuming otherwise, that I interpret the OP's argument as being "I hope news doesn't get personal" for the purpose of an informed public capable of making critical decisions, as opposed to proclaiming it's a preferable business model.

Of course you will sell more chocolate ice-creams to a chocoholic than if you tried to force them to buy broccoli, but that's not good for their health. And you're likely to be more profitable marketing personalised news, but at what expense to civil conversation and a social middle ground where reasonable debate can be held?

I think there's an important nuance separating "personalized" and "tailored". The personalization the article is talking about is mostly geared towards deciding which sources someone should see--do you want to see stuff from Drudge or HuffPo, for example. Imagine if Pandora only played stuff from bands that it knew you liked.

Tailoring a feed to someone's interest, however, is more like what Pandora actually does--learn "what" you like, not "who" you like. So I've discovered a lot of musicians that I would never have otherwise heard from Pandora, which rocks.

I think a tailored feed that keeps my interest and exposes me to new things that I'll actually be interested in is the best of both worlds.

I very much see what the author is getting at, but I think he mis-diagnoses the problem. To the extent that the news is homogeneous then, all things being equal, we're going to get stuff that panders to the lowest common denominator, not in depth or challenging reporting. I mean, have you watched cable news recently?

I think that more than just have everybody have the same source of news the writer would really prefer that that news was more in depth and critical than most of what you find on television, or in other words that other people should embrace his preferences in news watching. I probably agree with him! But in practice I think talking about or trying to achieve the first when you really want the second is going to be counterproductive.

The future isn't in news filtering, it's in better news analysis. I think many would say HN is great because it has lots of quality articles. HN is great because unlike any traditional news source, you can have an analysis that no one news source can offer. Oh, and you can add your 2 cents, or ask questions too.

That said, looking at what is popularly called 'news' I'm glad I can apply a filter.

There's a TED talk on this matter http://www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_bu...

I've heard this argument before and I've never understood it. Would it make sense to suggest that we ignore the recommendations on Netflix because we'd be missing out on movies we know we wouldn't enjoy? Information overload is becoming a huge problem, and personalization is the solution to the problem, although the problem is a hard one to solve.

I don't miss the "good old days" when the establishment media sources went unchallenged. I'm happy that I have a range of dissenters to choose from to get my news and analysis. I'd rather listen to Radley Balko than Walter Cronkite or, egads, FDR. Cops have been abusing their power forever, but who was reporting on it?

Of course it is. No doubt we need news filters, or curation, because there's too much news for us to handpick. You can still do that but you're missing a lot of interesting stuff.

The discussion should be about the way filtering works. Of course you should not get what you "like", but what you are interested in. There's a subtle but big difference in that.

News is obselete. Wikipedia has replaced it.

I don't even read 90% of "news articles" because they're not very factual or objective, and scant on details. I just go to Wikipedia, I go search for first-hand evidence.

I want a service that's just facts not "news."

I don't know about the US, but here in the UK the easiest way to find out someone's political perspective is to ask them what newspaper they read. We just don't have a national newspaper that doesn't have a political agenda. You can choose a paper, safe in the knowledge that nothing you read will challenge your world view or upset your prejudices. There's nothing stopping you from reading all the other papers, but the only people who do are Media Studies students and PR men.

As explained in 1987: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGscoaUWW2M

> Part of the purpose of news is to create an educated and engaged citizenry, not merely provide a funnel for our natural predilection for the stuff we like (which the Internet is already stunningly good at).

Is that a euphemism for brainwashing the public? One of the reasons traditional journalism is dying, is precisely because they are trying to shove content down the throats of their readers. Content that nobody wants to read. Get off your high horse. Journalism is entertainment. The citizenry educates itself, by means of things called books ... not through muckraking.

This is a very fascinating set of comments. We have people that believe that the news is irrelevant, mere entertainment, a form of brainwashing (!), and something that only encompasses quick hit reporting. Then we have those that argue for more specialization since it works just fine for Pandora and Netflix. It seems to be a minority position that a diverse set of news creates a better informed citizenry and this is something desirable. I'm not sure if this is just among techies or if this is a broader belief. I'd be interested in your thoughts.

I use the 'recommended items' feature on Google Reader quite a lot. It does a good job of finding things I'd like, but also puts in a lot of other random stuff. (Which I occasionally like.) The more things I 'liked', the more random stuff appeared... (Probably because I have such a diverse set of interests that it just can't read me well.)

I think generally that people need far less news than they consume. Many things are probably irrelevant and some even harmful to their mood or motivation.

However, I also want to stay informed on certain topics.

Say I'm a freelance graphic designer. Surely would I want news about the latest in CSS and logos, wouldn't I?

Can't the same be said about news outlets with agendas?

For example people who only watch Fox News or read the Daily Mail.

undefined