4 ms·

I don't think it's true that news media "clearly" do not see themselves as watchdogs anymore -- that's a pretty massive generalization. As the article discusse

I don't think it's true that news media "clearly" do not see themselves as watchdogs anymore -- that's a pretty massive generalization. As the article discussed, the universe of news providers writ large has certainly moved in two directions that are problematic: (1) ideological coverage, i.e. the big cable networks, and (2) "short-form"/entertainment/listicle-style coverage that optimizes for page views instead of content, i.e. Buzzfeed (although they're developing a helluva investigative section and stole Mark Schoofs from ProPublica). But just because the balance has shifted does not mean that all news media have suddenly abrogated social responsibility. The legacy papers aren't dead yet and their quality hasn't diminished notably; on the new media front, folks at places like Ozy and Vox Media aren't half bad at balancing the pageview-centric culture of most online media with depth and quality of topic selection and reporting. In short, I don't think that statement is problematic at all. The author is worried about the sustainability of quality news, but it seems wildly inaccurate to deny its current effectiveness at promoting governance.

toyg 11y ago
> The legacy papers aren't dead yet and their quality hasn't diminished notably That's a pretty massive generalisation as well. After Judith Miller, Jayson Blair and today's Tom Harper, I would say there is a good amount of data indicating the quality has in fact diminished across the board. The WaPost itself is a symbol of this decay: in 30 years they went from Watergate hounds to Iraq-invasion cheerleaders. If you look at the average column nowadays, it's all a bunch of "senior official sources" briefing utter lies in order to further their agendas. > but it seems wildly inaccurate to deny its current effectiveness at promoting governance. I guess it depends on what you mean by "governance". Note that I'm not saying this shift is entirely the result of market pressure; increased knowledge of the mechanisms and inner workings of news media has produced an increased amount of skilful operators, people who know how to manipulate and interact with journalists better than ever. Still, I think the trend is quite clear.
- hackuser 11y ago
  > After Judith Miller, Jayson Blair and today's Tom Harper, I would say there is a good amount of data indicating the quality has in fact diminished across the board. The WaPost itself is a symbol of this decay: in 30 years they went from Watergate hounds to Iraq-invasion cheerleaders. If you look at the average column nowadays, it's all a bunch of "senior official sources" briefing utter lies in order to further their agendas. I have no reason to believe it was better in the past. News organizations are human institutions, and like all the others they struggle with corruption and other failings. An major example off the top of my head: http://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/24/books/the-journalist-and-the-dictator.html http://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/24/books/the-journalist-and-t...
- crucini 11y ago
  I think Blair is an interesting rarity that distracts from the real problems with media. Very few reporters have the bad judgement to make up entire stories; that's why Blair is newsworthy. Do his sins tell us anything about journalism as a whole? Well, Blair was good at catering to his editors; he knew his editors would love a story about frat boys behaving badly. How does that manifest in the work of more cautious reporters?

toyg 11y ago

> The legacy papers aren't dead yet and their quality hasn't diminished notably That's a pretty massive generalisation as well. After Judith Miller, Jayson Blair and today's Tom Harper, I would say there is a good amount of data indicating the quality has in fact diminished across the board. The WaPost itself is a symbol of this decay: in 30 years they went from Watergate hounds to Iraq-invasion cheerleaders. If you look at the average column nowadays, it's all a bunch of "senior official sources" briefing utter lies in order to further their agendas. > but it seems wildly inaccurate to deny its current effectiveness at promoting governance. I guess it depends on what you mean by "governance". Note that I'm not saying this shift is entirely the result of market pressure; increased knowledge of the mechanisms and inner workings of news media has produced an increased amount of skilful operators, people who know how to manipulate and interact with journalists better than ever. Still, I think the trend is quite clear.

hackuser 11y ago
> After Judith Miller, Jayson Blair and today's Tom Harper, I would say there is a good amount of data indicating the quality has in fact diminished across the board. The WaPost itself is a symbol of this decay: in 30 years they went from Watergate hounds to Iraq-invasion cheerleaders. If you look at the average column nowadays, it's all a bunch of "senior official sources" briefing utter lies in order to further their agendas. I have no reason to believe it was better in the past. News organizations are human institutions, and like all the others they struggle with corruption and other failings. An major example off the top of my head: http://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/24/books/the-journalist-and-the-dictator.html http://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/24/books/the-journalist-and-t...
crucini 11y ago
I think Blair is an interesting rarity that distracts from the real problems with media. Very few reporters have the bad judgement to make up entire stories; that's why Blair is newsworthy. Do his sins tell us anything about journalism as a whole? Well, Blair was good at catering to his editors; he knew his editors would love a story about frat boys behaving badly. How does that manifest in the work of more cautious reporters?