Having read Krugman's reasoning for leaving the Times, I find myself sinking even deeper into pessimism about the future of news media and, more broadly, the fu

Having read Krugman's reasoning for leaving the Times, I find myself sinking even deeper into pessimism about the future of news media and, more broadly, the future democracy. My interpretation of Krugman's departure is that higher-ups edited and re-edited his columns to reduce the possibility of calling up a kerfuffle. They wanted him to soften his words and blunt his message because they were sensitive to calls of media bias. I think that's exactly the wrong response. This is what it looks like when an Overton window moves. In particular, this is how it looks when critical media insights are dulled in an attempt to appease an audience that probably isn't interested anyway. How many hard-core Trumpers do you know that started reading the New York Times after the editorial board made an effort to "expand their message"? For better or for worse, the world is leaving the New York Times behind. The older generation turns to Fox News, the younger generation to TikTok (or its successor), and the board's attempt to dull its message will only bore to death whatever remaining readers they have. If real news and real journalism wants to remain relevant, they should make sure their message is above all interesting, not boring, not muted; and they should choose an appropriate medium, which, sad to say, is probably not dead trees. [edit:] Another depressing aspect of this is that Krugman isn't just a pundit, some talking head: he's a legitimate expert. This is exactly the kind of person who needs a bigger audience. Krugman draws attention to this fact in this piece, and I like the way he said it: there's a difference between an opinion and an informed opinion. In the age of the internet, there is no trouble hearing someone else's opinion on any topic imaginable, but it's a lot harder to hear from someone who actually knows what they are talking about, and is able to communicate well. Krugman was one of those, and now the Times has none. People shout about "bias" as if it's a bad thing. But yet, every human being has biases, formed by their experiences. It's impossible to write anything interesting about anything without potentially being accused of bias. The deeper vice, of which we should be aware and try to combat, is corruption. The difference is this: if someone expresses a sincerely-held opinion based on evidence, they're biased; if someone expressed an opinion that they do not in fact hold, but express only because it is their job to express it, they are corrupt.