sometimes I read something and I have no idea whether it’s true or not but it feels politically motivated but it’s being obfuscated by supposed “obvious truths” that the masses have not been seeing

like what do any of us actually about knows the history of newsrooms

Marc knows a lot about this actually

Here's a blog post that Katherine is likely paraphrasing

Marc knows a lot about this actually

Here's a blog post that Katherine is likely paraphrasing

https://a16z.com/the-future-of-the-news-business-a-monumental-twitter-stream-all-in-one-place/

This is from 2014 btw - helpful to level set on the timing before reading it

It's pretty prescient IMO

You're right that the pmarca piece isn't entirely about editorial, and it's mostly about news business models. What I was trying to point out is that subjective journalism *was* the dominant model pre-WWII, as Katherine was suggesting, and *it did* change to objective journalism in the mid-20th century - but not because young people took over news orgs; I agree it's much more nuanced than her tweet implies (see screenshot)

I tend to resonate with pmarca's take that "presenting an event or an issue with a point of view can have even more impact, and reach an audience otherwise left out of the conversation." 

Because there is *much* higher volume of news these days, more publications need to niche down to attract the right audience → so by being more opinionated (less "objective"), WaPo becomes increasingly niche, which may retain customers more effectively

Could be wrong but I don’t see it mentioning editorial / opinion much?

I think there’s a combination of opinions that feels illogical to me:
- owner of paper setting editorial direction is good
- 25 year olds (likely approved of by owner) having editorial say is bad?
- also from last fall: the owner deciding to not endorse (after endorsing for years) a candidate is a good thing

I feel like even in 2020 the NYT opinion section was arguably more open minded to dissenting opinions than it seems Bezos is heading