3 ms·

Long form journalism has been a buzzy format in the last years and has gotten a bad rap, for good reason. The New Yorker has been doing this since before it ha

Long form journalism has been a buzzy format in the last years and has gotten a bad rap, for good reason. The New Yorker has been doing this since before it had that name. They're as good as they've always been. What they do used to be called "literary journalism" and the name says it all. It's not that it's long. It's that it's more akin to reading a nonfiction book, with all the pleasure AND utility that that can provide.

systemvoltage 5y ago
The problem with this type of journalism isn't just the length. When you make informing facts a literary adventure, you inevitable inject a bunch of personal bias (NewYorker has a huge liberal bias) and motifs that have a tone of a particular axe to grind. It is a chore to read these. I am not a fan. To their credit, it is well written in terms of creativity.
- m_fayer 5y ago
  > When you make informing facts a literary adventure Literary journalism, like non-fiction, do much more than mere fact-dumping. And what we now call "bias" used to be called "perspective".
  - systemvoltage 5y ago
    > And what we now call "bias" used to be called "perspective". More like what we used to get was perspective instead now we get bias. Perspective provides a wholistic view, not a myopic, dogmatic slant that skews facts to fit their perspective. Journalism has gotten much... much worse over the years. You can read 1960's NewYorker and find a stark difference in their ability to put away political bias and provide a deep comprehensive review of the topic.
    - m_fayer 5y ago
      I agree with you. But I did not think that this applied to the New Yorker. Thanks for this comment, you got me curious. I'll take a look at the New Yorker of the past, maybe reevaluate.
      - systemvoltage 5y ago
        I think people on this forum think that anything that's not liberal is trumpism + unsubstantiated anti-science BS. That's not what I am referring to and going against the slightest here would get you downvotes.

systemvoltage 5y ago

The problem with this type of journalism isn't just the length. When you make informing facts a literary adventure, you inevitable inject a bunch of personal bias (NewYorker has a huge liberal bias) and motifs that have a tone of a particular axe to grind. It is a chore to read these. I am not a fan. To their credit, it is well written in terms of creativity.

m_fayer 5y ago
> When you make informing facts a literary adventure Literary journalism, like non-fiction, do much more than mere fact-dumping. And what we now call "bias" used to be called "perspective".
- systemvoltage 5y ago
  > And what we now call "bias" used to be called "perspective". More like what we used to get was perspective instead now we get bias. Perspective provides a wholistic view, not a myopic, dogmatic slant that skews facts to fit their perspective. Journalism has gotten much... much worse over the years. You can read 1960's NewYorker and find a stark difference in their ability to put away political bias and provide a deep comprehensive review of the topic.
  - m_fayer 5y ago
    I agree with you. But I did not think that this applied to the New Yorker. Thanks for this comment, you got me curious. I'll take a look at the New Yorker of the past, maybe reevaluate.
    - systemvoltage 5y ago
      I think people on this forum think that anything that's not liberal is trumpism + unsubstantiated anti-science BS. That's not what I am referring to and going against the slightest here would get you downvotes.