3 ms·

I still like and often listen The Daily but more and more I'm annoyed by the sort of insularity or kind of NIH syndrom of this program. By that I mean almost al

by doe88 7y ago

I still like and often listen The Daily but more and more I'm annoyed by the sort of insularity or kind of NIH syndrom of this program. By that I mean almost all the guests are from the NYT and whatever the story is, few credits are given or mentions are made to outside journalists. Maybe I'm wrong and not very objective but in the end I find it too much self-centered, it's only my feeling at least.

danso 7y ago
It’s somewhat understandable. The featured journalists are not only interviewed during work hours, they are collecting audio and notes (including behind the scenes material) on company time. It’s not just the Daily being insular, but that other journalism orgs aren’t incentivized to lend their journalists and work to the NYT for the NYT to profit from.
- doe88 7y ago
  I really think that for instance on a piece of investigative journalism whose the main author would be a journalist from say wapo, I've hard time thinking this person would decline an invitation to speak about and promote his/her article.
  - InitialLastName 7y ago
    I'm not familiar with the newspaper industry, but I would assume the issue wouldn't be with the wapo journalist as much as with their employing paper, in a twofold way: - It's worth assuming that the Washington Post (as an organization) wouldn't want their employees doing content for a major rival (rather than on Post Reports, their equivalent of The Daily). - As the article mentions, the podcast is in many ways a promotional tool for the rest of the newspaper, and I can't see NYT (again, as an organization) wanting to use it to promote a competitor.
    - doe88 7y ago
      Concerning your first point, granted I'm not familiar with each internal guidelines, and overall it may very well be what you describe but just to give an example that's not totally inconceivable, I routinely observe New Yorker staffers promoting their longform pieces on Fresh Air (NPR). For your second point, I guess it really depends on what you want, either insularity, or diversity, openness and acknowledgement of great works accomplished elsewhere.
      - InitialLastName 7y ago
        The New Yorker (owned by Conde Nast, which is effectively 100% text publishing) doesn't really compete with NPR (which is effectively 100% radio publishing). The New Yorker also specializes in long-form written pieces, for which NPR interviews act as a sort of promotional piece. On the other hand, even a deep NYT or Wapo investigative report can probably be covered comprehensively enough for most people in 20 mins.
        doe88 7y ago
        What I was simply trying to express is NYT would greatly enrich their reporting by linking to or mentioning or discuss others great reportings, for instance on this episode about the Aghanistan War Papers [1] it would greatly be valuable to at least have a link to the work of WaPo on the subject which was kind of lead on the matter. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/16/podcasts/the-daily/afghanistan.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/16/podcasts/the-daily/afghan...

by doe88 7y ago

danso 7y ago

It’s somewhat understandable. The featured journalists are not only interviewed during work hours, they are collecting audio and notes (including behind the scenes material) on company time. It’s not just the Daily being insular, but that other journalism orgs aren’t incentivized to lend their journalists and work to the NYT for the NYT to profit from.

doe88 7y ago
I really think that for instance on a piece of investigative journalism whose the main author would be a journalist from say wapo, I've hard time thinking this person would decline an invitation to speak about and promote his/her article.
- InitialLastName 7y ago
  I'm not familiar with the newspaper industry, but I would assume the issue wouldn't be with the wapo journalist as much as with their employing paper, in a twofold way: - It's worth assuming that the Washington Post (as an organization) wouldn't want their employees doing content for a major rival (rather than on Post Reports, their equivalent of The Daily). - As the article mentions, the podcast is in many ways a promotional tool for the rest of the newspaper, and I can't see NYT (again, as an organization) wanting to use it to promote a competitor.
  - doe88 7y ago
    Concerning your first point, granted I'm not familiar with each internal guidelines, and overall it may very well be what you describe but just to give an example that's not totally inconceivable, I routinely observe New Yorker staffers promoting their longform pieces on Fresh Air (NPR). For your second point, I guess it really depends on what you want, either insularity, or diversity, openness and acknowledgement of great works accomplished elsewhere.
    - InitialLastName 7y ago
      The New Yorker (owned by Conde Nast, which is effectively 100% text publishing) doesn't really compete with NPR (which is effectively 100% radio publishing). The New Yorker also specializes in long-form written pieces, for which NPR interviews act as a sort of promotional piece. On the other hand, even a deep NYT or Wapo investigative report can probably be covered comprehensively enough for most people in 20 mins.
      - doe88 7y ago
        What I was simply trying to express is NYT would greatly enrich their reporting by linking to or mentioning or discuss others great reportings, for instance on this episode about the Aghanistan War Papers [1] it would greatly be valuable to at least have a link to the work of WaPo on the subject which was kind of lead on the matter. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/16/podcasts/the-daily/afghanistan.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/16/podcasts/the-daily/afghan...