Part of the problem with the Times nowadays isn't just their "value add" strategy of embedding analysis in news articles, but rather how predictable their politics are every..single..time. Even for people with matching personal politics I think it is frustrating to see such a homogeneous, non diverse perspective. It seems forced and I feel like in their eagerness to abandon "commodity news" they are entering a sort of downward spiral in terms of reputation and quality.
Re:Did Reddit Boss Coverage Cross a Line?
by DanielBMarkham on Sunday July 19, 2015 @02:07PM
(#9912152)
As a former freelance writer and watcher of the media, I've been watching media pundits talk about ethics in journalism for a long time.
I really wish this wasn't the case, but the fact of the matter is that "providing analysis" and "speaking to a pre-existing narrative" are slippery enough terms that you can drive a truck through them. It's much more workable as a media consumer just to assume bias and deal with it. This odd dance we've become stuck performing where the MSM pretends to not be human and operating from some imagined place of total objectivity is not sustainable.
I like the NYT -- given that, well, it's the NYT. Same goes for a lot of other media outlets. I think the problem here is the facade we build around the media, the folks themselves are talented and do a good job. It's the framework we stick them in that sucks.
I would love to see more mainstream consumer discussion ethics in journalism that avoids the fundamentalism of a certain group that has taken up the cause of late. There's a lot to talk about there and a lot of different, legitimate, priorities that can lead to different conclusions. It's an important subject with a lot of depth. Maybe we're ready for that conversation: there's the whole Gawker thing, for instance, and there are many levels to that story (like unionization). Like all complex systems, there's no easy answer.