5 ms·

I meant "should" in the sense that it is a good thing they rapidly being eclipsed by newer types of journalism, not that they should actively be shut down. "Su

I meant "should" in the sense that it is a good thing they rapidly being eclipsed by newer types of journalism, not that they should actively be shut down. "Sure they have a ton of Pulitzers." Given that blogs have only become serious competitors to print media in the last 5 or so years this shouldn't be a surprise, and it certainly isn't a defense. "They maintain lots of foreign bureaus." Again this is awesome, except now we can just get the info from residents of these areas. "They broke the NSA wiretap story". Sure and folks on the internet broke "Document-gate" when people were trying to frame GWB. I'm not against the NYT, but I am against them just slurping up content from the web, adding no value and then passing it off to their customers without credit to the original sources. I'm really against the factual errors brought up in the top post.

tptacek 17y ago
I find these comparisons amusing. The NSA wiretap story documented unconstitutional malfeasance by one of the largest, most secretive organizations in the US government. The "GWB was framed" story involved knowing the typeface used in a fake document circulated by a private citizen and inadvertantly authenticated by a private news organization. Similarly, I'd like to know who in Darfur is going to file the CNN "i-Report", or how many 140-character "Tweets" it's going to take to document the next genocide. I'm not in favor of the NYT, but I think I have a decent bead on what the "new journalism" has in store for us (breathless promotion of context-free Flip Mino clips of Iranian protests on Andrew Sullivan's blog; TechCrunch), and I'm confident that most of its advocates don't really understand that @BreakingNews actually gets its news from big companies that pay people to actually report.
- replicatorblog 17y ago
  I'm glad I can amuse you. Another example would be the "Citizen Reporters" who documented fraud committed by ACORN by going under cover with a flip cam. The NYT did almost no substantive reporting on the matter. I'm sure you'll try to write that off by saying it is just righty propaganda, a tacky spectacle, etc. However Al Franken won by a razor thin margin in a state with active Acorn voter registration efforts. Might they have been the difference that got him elected? Now his vote makes a massive overhaul to our health care system possible. I'm not sure if reshaping 20% of our economy is on par with "documented unconstitutional malfeasance by one of the largest, most secretive organizations in the US government", but on a day to day basis it will certainly impact more people, in more significant ways. And yes I can see where you could stress test this argument successfully. Congrats. Take great satisfaction in citing the supremacy of of a 100+ year old medium with an established business model that has managed to keep a slight edge on a 5 year old medium that is still getting its legs.
  - tptacek 17y ago
    You're not doing the "new journalism" any favors with the examples you're choosing to advocate with. The O'Keefe ACORN video you're talking about has been roundly criticized for editing out details that exculpate ACORN staffers. The fact that O'Keefe probably had a real story to chase down makes it worse, because his sloppy efforts --- which by his own admission mix "attack-attack-attack" political tactics with reportage --- make it impossible to talk about ACORN without talking about the credibility of the reporters. You seem eager to talk about politics. I don't care what your politics are. I care that we're exchanging The Wall Street Journal (35+ foreign bureaus) for Twitter, TechCrunch, and the YouTube exploits of DailyKos and Malkin "diarists".
    - replicatorblog 17y ago
      I'm not eager to talk politics, however most big news stories share that subject so it's hard not to. In fact, my original criticism of "old media" and all the bureaus and trappings that lend it legitimacy, was that it had gotten lazy and shallow. This seems to be your quarrel with "new media". I'll reiterate my original point. I don't like repoters who write factually incorrect articles that are read by millions when there are better original sources. I would like high quality journalism be it new or old. Nary a partisan statement to be found:)

tptacek 17y ago

I find these comparisons amusing. The NSA wiretap story documented unconstitutional malfeasance by one of the largest, most secretive organizations in the US government. The "GWB was framed" story involved knowing the typeface used in a fake document circulated by a private citizen and inadvertantly authenticated by a private news organization. Similarly, I'd like to know who in Darfur is going to file the CNN "i-Report", or how many 140-character "Tweets" it's going to take to document the next genocide. I'm not in favor of the NYT, but I think I have a decent bead on what the "new journalism" has in store for us (breathless promotion of context-free Flip Mino clips of Iranian protests on Andrew Sullivan's blog; TechCrunch), and I'm confident that most of its advocates don't really understand that @BreakingNews actually gets its news from big companies that pay people to actually report.

replicatorblog 17y ago
I'm glad I can amuse you. Another example would be the "Citizen Reporters" who documented fraud committed by ACORN by going under cover with a flip cam. The NYT did almost no substantive reporting on the matter. I'm sure you'll try to write that off by saying it is just righty propaganda, a tacky spectacle, etc. However Al Franken won by a razor thin margin in a state with active Acorn voter registration efforts. Might they have been the difference that got him elected? Now his vote makes a massive overhaul to our health care system possible. I'm not sure if reshaping 20% of our economy is on par with "documented unconstitutional malfeasance by one of the largest, most secretive organizations in the US government", but on a day to day basis it will certainly impact more people, in more significant ways. And yes I can see where you could stress test this argument successfully. Congrats. Take great satisfaction in citing the supremacy of of a 100+ year old medium with an established business model that has managed to keep a slight edge on a 5 year old medium that is still getting its legs.
- tptacek 17y ago
  You're not doing the "new journalism" any favors with the examples you're choosing to advocate with. The O'Keefe ACORN video you're talking about has been roundly criticized for editing out details that exculpate ACORN staffers. The fact that O'Keefe probably had a real story to chase down makes it worse, because his sloppy efforts --- which by his own admission mix "attack-attack-attack" political tactics with reportage --- make it impossible to talk about ACORN without talking about the credibility of the reporters. You seem eager to talk about politics. I don't care what your politics are. I care that we're exchanging The Wall Street Journal (35+ foreign bureaus) for Twitter, TechCrunch, and the YouTube exploits of DailyKos and Malkin "diarists".
  - replicatorblog 17y ago
    I'm not eager to talk politics, however most big news stories share that subject so it's hard not to. In fact, my original criticism of "old media" and all the bureaus and trappings that lend it legitimacy, was that it had gotten lazy and shallow. This seems to be your quarrel with "new media". I'll reiterate my original point. I don't like repoters who write factually incorrect articles that are read by millions when there are better original sources. I would like high quality journalism be it new or old. Nary a partisan statement to be found:)