7 ms·

From the article: > "Ms. Callimachi’s approach to storytelling aligned with a more profound shift underway at The Times .... to turn distant conflicts in Afric

From the article: > "Ms. Callimachi’s approach to storytelling aligned with a more profound shift underway at The Times .... to turn distant conflicts in Africa and the Middle East into irresistibly accessible stories." > "The Times should have been alert to the possibility that, in its signature audio documentary, it was listening too hard for the story it wanted to hear — rooting for the story" This is interesting coming from Times themselves because that's exactly what I've been feeling in the past couple of years occasionally reading Times' articles. There's too much focus on narrative and less on facts. In reality there's no narrative. There's no black and white. Most things are shades of gray. You'd expect journalists to give you facts, instead their focus is on creating emotion through narrative, while rooting for their story, downplaying inconvenient facts. It's quite sad.

em500 6y ago
> You'd expect journalists to give you facts, instead their focus is on creating emotion through narrative, while rooting for their story, downplaying inconvenient facts. Factual news looks like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events. People don't want to read that, and journalists must to some degree write what people want to read. It's quite the dilemma.
- senkora 6y ago
  I used to read that in high school for debate class, since we were quizzed weekly on current events. I completely agree, it is not exactly thrilling.
- thu2111 6y ago
  Well, not really. That page is a collection of current events but they're essentially random, with no filtering or ranking for relevance to the reader. So there's some incident in Azerbaijan related to some conflict with a neighbour, something about a change in the speaker of the house in the Philippines, etc. It's possible for news to both be factual and relevant.
- tupputuppu 6y ago
  That's really the most disturbing fact isn't it. That journalism isn't horrible because of media companies, it's horrible because of peoples' tastes.
op03 6y ago
I always thought of journos as search engine bots. Digging up facts. Contributing to the quality of the index of all knowledge. Today the index has turned to shit cause Google/Facebook/Twitter have decided to reward them not for index quality but for index engagement. The reward/pain mechanism has to change.
rayiner 6y ago
This is no accident. Between 2007 and 2011, the NYT’s revenue fell by half. It’s only recovered a bit since then. A lot of the paper’s senior reporters are gone, replaced by younger reporters who just aren’t very good. Bloomberg is pretty good these days, so is the Financial Times. I also have to give a shout-out to Jacobin. I’m just about the opposite of their demographic ideologically, but their willingness to acknowledge facts contrary to their narrative is unmatched. I’m also a huge fan of Vox’s podcasts. The online presence is mostly trash, but Ezra Klein, Matt Yglesias, and Jane Coaston are some of the most serious and thoughtful people in journalism right now.
- camgunz 6y ago
  Seconded, I snarf up new Ezra Klein episodes as soon as they come out. Do you have any other policy or related shows you enjoy? I’m looking to beef up my subscriptions a little.
  - muffinman26 6y ago
    You've probably already heard of this one because Ezra Klein appears regularly, but the Weeds is my go-to policy podcast.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- esja 6y ago
  The Financial Times is on the same path into narrative-first fantasyland, it's just happening a bit slower as they still have a captive audience for their (excellent) markets coverage.
WalterBright 6y ago
All you need to do is look at the nytimes web site front page. It's nearly all opinion pieces, even the "news" pieces.
- Wowfunhappy 6y ago
  Huh? I just went to the homepage; as of 9:40 AM EDT, I'm not seeing any opinion pieces on the homepage outside of the clearly-delineated opinion column.
  - WalterBright 6y ago
    "First, a Vaccine Approval. Then 'Chaos and Confusion'." "Rooted in Faith, Barrett Presents a New Conservatism" "The comments from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff came after the White House tripped over itself on the issue of Afghanistan troop levels in recent days." "She is a stark departure from traditional Supreme Court Nominees." The selection of which articles to put on the front page is also evidence of bias.
    - Wowfunhappy 6y ago
      These aren't editorials, and the articles aren't written like editorials. > "First, a Vaccine Approval. Then 'Chaos and Confusion'." The subhead gives a better description of what the article is about "Come spring, Americans may have their choice of several so-so coronavirus vaccines — with no way of knowing which one is best." The article is centered on conversations with experts on what that will mean for individuals. > "The comments from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff came after the White House tripped over itself on the issue of Afghanistan troop levels in recent days." This is an article reporting on comments made by a high-level government official. > "Rooted in Faith, Barrett Presents a New Conservatism" > "She is a stark departure from traditional Supreme Court Nominees." These are both from the same entry/article, about Amy Coney Barrett's background and resumé. --- None of these articles are completely devoid from the reporter's opinions. However, I don't think it's possible to explain these issues in a completely neutral way. Let's take that last article, since you quoted it twice. The statement that Amy Coney Barrett is "a stark departure from traditional Supreme Court Nominees." is not a scientific fact. However, the article goes on to detail the ways in which she's unusual—she's young, for starters, and from the south, and she's spent much of her career teaching rather than working in governmental positions. That is unusual for supreme court justices, and I think it should be reported on. The NYT's actual editorials are written in a distinctly different manner, which I think will become obvious if you spend a a few moments reading them. The article's goal is explicitly to advocate for one position.
Barrin92 6y ago
There are many forms of journalism. Hunter S. Thompson with his Gonzo style violated about every norm of the craft but he was right, as he said in his obituary of Nixon "Some people will say that words like scum and rotten are wrong for Objective Journalism -- which is true, but they miss the point. It was the built-in blind spots of the Objective rules and dogma that allowed Nixon to slither into the White House in the first place. He looked so good on paper that you could almost vote for him sight unseen. He seemed so all-American, so much like Horatio Alger, that he was able to slip through the cracks of Objective Journalism. You had to get Subjective to see Nixon clearly, and the shock of recognition was often painful." The problem isn't that journalists create narratives, narratives are a way to make sense of the world, we're not data absorbing automatons. The issue with the NYT is that the writers don't have any sense for good narrative. It's all the same kind of sentimental, urban, millenial kitsch you get from people that went straight from their upper middle-class education into blogging, journalism and podcasting, and it produces the kind of tepid stuff that has come from the times over recent years.
- brnt 6y ago
  > The issue with the NYT is that the writers don't have any sense for good narrative. Might you be slightly exaggerating?
- prox 6y ago
  In the article CJ Chivers is mentioned and his style is just facts. I followed his blog when it was active. He has been in every warzone and he tracks munitions to its place of origin, which tells an interesting (and sometimes troubling) story of the weaponstrade (which I feel is woefully underreported about)
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- wefarrell 6y ago
  Gonzo journalism has its place, the Times is not it.
RickJWagner 6y ago
It is sad. The NYT used to be a great paper. They've become an opinion-driven organization that starts a project with a pre-drawn conclusion, then starts gathering facts that support the end result. Or so it seems.
2OEH8eoCRo0 6y ago
I've found the complete opposite to be true most of the time.

em500 6y ago

> You'd expect journalists to give you facts, instead their focus is on creating emotion through narrative, while rooting for their story, downplaying inconvenient facts. Factual news looks like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events. People don't want to read that, and journalists must to some degree write what people want to read. It's quite the dilemma.

senkora 6y ago
I used to read that in high school for debate class, since we were quizzed weekly on current events. I completely agree, it is not exactly thrilling.
thu2111 6y ago
Well, not really. That page is a collection of current events but they're essentially random, with no filtering or ranking for relevance to the reader. So there's some incident in Azerbaijan related to some conflict with a neighbour, something about a change in the speaker of the house in the Philippines, etc. It's possible for news to both be factual and relevant.
tupputuppu 6y ago
That's really the most disturbing fact isn't it. That journalism isn't horrible because of media companies, it's horrible because of peoples' tastes.

op03 6y ago

I always thought of journos as search engine bots. Digging up facts. Contributing to the quality of the index of all knowledge. Today the index has turned to shit cause Google/Facebook/Twitter have decided to reward them not for index quality but for index engagement. The reward/pain mechanism has to change.

rayiner 6y ago

This is no accident. Between 2007 and 2011, the NYT’s revenue fell by half. It’s only recovered a bit since then. A lot of the paper’s senior reporters are gone, replaced by younger reporters who just aren’t very good. Bloomberg is pretty good these days, so is the Financial Times. I also have to give a shout-out to Jacobin. I’m just about the opposite of their demographic ideologically, but their willingness to acknowledge facts contrary to their narrative is unmatched. I’m also a huge fan of Vox’s podcasts. The online presence is mostly trash, but Ezra Klein, Matt Yglesias, and Jane Coaston are some of the most serious and thoughtful people in journalism right now.

camgunz 6y ago
Seconded, I snarf up new Ezra Klein episodes as soon as they come out. Do you have any other policy or related shows you enjoy? I’m looking to beef up my subscriptions a little.
- muffinman26 6y ago
  You've probably already heard of this one because Ezra Klein appears regularly, but the Weeds is my go-to policy podcast.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
esja 6y ago
The Financial Times is on the same path into narrative-first fantasyland, it's just happening a bit slower as they still have a captive audience for their (excellent) markets coverage.

WalterBright 6y ago

All you need to do is look at the nytimes web site front page. It's nearly all opinion pieces, even the "news" pieces.

Wowfunhappy 6y ago
Huh? I just went to the homepage; as of 9:40 AM EDT, I'm not seeing any opinion pieces on the homepage outside of the clearly-delineated opinion column.
- WalterBright 6y ago
  "First, a Vaccine Approval. Then 'Chaos and Confusion'." "Rooted in Faith, Barrett Presents a New Conservatism" "The comments from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff came after the White House tripped over itself on the issue of Afghanistan troop levels in recent days." "She is a stark departure from traditional Supreme Court Nominees." The selection of which articles to put on the front page is also evidence of bias.
  - Wowfunhappy 6y ago
    These aren't editorials, and the articles aren't written like editorials. > "First, a Vaccine Approval. Then 'Chaos and Confusion'." The subhead gives a better description of what the article is about "Come spring, Americans may have their choice of several so-so coronavirus vaccines — with no way of knowing which one is best." The article is centered on conversations with experts on what that will mean for individuals. > "The comments from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff came after the White House tripped over itself on the issue of Afghanistan troop levels in recent days." This is an article reporting on comments made by a high-level government official. > "Rooted in Faith, Barrett Presents a New Conservatism" > "She is a stark departure from traditional Supreme Court Nominees." These are both from the same entry/article, about Amy Coney Barrett's background and resumé. --- None of these articles are completely devoid from the reporter's opinions. However, I don't think it's possible to explain these issues in a completely neutral way. Let's take that last article, since you quoted it twice. The statement that Amy Coney Barrett is "a stark departure from traditional Supreme Court Nominees." is not a scientific fact. However, the article goes on to detail the ways in which she's unusual—she's young, for starters, and from the south, and she's spent much of her career teaching rather than working in governmental positions. That is unusual for supreme court justices, and I think it should be reported on. The NYT's actual editorials are written in a distinctly different manner, which I think will become obvious if you spend a a few moments reading them. The article's goal is explicitly to advocate for one position.

Barrin92 6y ago

There are many forms of journalism. Hunter S. Thompson with his Gonzo style violated about every norm of the craft but he was right, as he said in his obituary of Nixon "Some people will say that words like scum and rotten are wrong for Objective Journalism -- which is true, but they miss the point. It was the built-in blind spots of the Objective rules and dogma that allowed Nixon to slither into the White House in the first place. He looked so good on paper that you could almost vote for him sight unseen. He seemed so all-American, so much like Horatio Alger, that he was able to slip through the cracks of Objective Journalism. You had to get Subjective to see Nixon clearly, and the shock of recognition was often painful." The problem isn't that journalists create narratives, narratives are a way to make sense of the world, we're not data absorbing automatons. The issue with the NYT is that the writers don't have any sense for good narrative. It's all the same kind of sentimental, urban, millenial kitsch you get from people that went straight from their upper middle-class education into blogging, journalism and podcasting, and it produces the kind of tepid stuff that has come from the times over recent years.

brnt 6y ago
> The issue with the NYT is that the writers don't have any sense for good narrative. Might you be slightly exaggerating?
prox 6y ago
In the article CJ Chivers is mentioned and his style is just facts. I followed his blog when it was active. He has been in every warzone and he tracks munitions to its place of origin, which tells an interesting (and sometimes troubling) story of the weaponstrade (which I feel is woefully underreported about)
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
wefarrell 6y ago
Gonzo journalism has its place, the Times is not it.

RickJWagner 6y ago

It is sad. The NYT used to be a great paper. They've become an opinion-driven organization that starts a project with a pre-drawn conclusion, then starts gathering facts that support the end result. Or so it seems.

2OEH8eoCRo0 6y ago

I've found the complete opposite to be true most of the time.