Thank you! I subscribe too and I've been increasingly pissed off by embedded prejudices in their reporting. And don't get me started on their headline writers, who often add spin to fairly clean articles, even sometimes changing the entire meaning of the article.
I have noticed this trend widespread in print and broadcast journalism as well. The NYT and WP used to label analytical pieces as News Analysis to make clear they were not straight reportage. They seem to have dropped the practice several years ago, perhaps causing reporters to be less aware of when their reporting was reflecting their own biases. I started souring on the PBS Newshour a couple of years ago when it began increasingly seemed an echo box of my own perspectives, not offering me anything that would challenge them. It’s reporters sometimes seem unaware of their own lack of objectivity. In the last year of the Trump presidency, one young Newshour reporter presented a summary of what she said was what Trump thought, not realizing that unless she was quoting him, her summary was her interpretation of what he thought and needed to be presented as such.
Being constantly aware of one’s own inherent biases is difficult, but we see now where the failure to make the effort is leading us. Journalists in particular need to try harder. Perhaps in print journalism bringing back the News Analysis label, formalizing the distinction between straight news reporting and analysis which usually reflects an particular perspective will help raise case consciousness of the distinction.
Most of us do not have time for 10,000 word articles. Columbia University Journalism school used to teach 3,000 word limits. For those with limited time there is THE WEEK which publishes excepts from other sources to give both sides. (I do subscribe to the NYTimes for intermittent online reading.)
I take the point, but I am not really sure this kind of neutrality is possible. From me it is enough to know‚ ‘where they are coming from,‘ so to say. If I know that, which is relatively easy with the Times, I feel I can make my own judgments. That said, I feel pretty well served by the New York Times. Part of this surely has to do with the fact that I share many of their views, though not all. I would even go a step further and say that I cannot imagine my life without the morning confrontation.
Both men are autocrats with a history of a contentious relationship with the United States. They appear to want to rewrite some of the international rules.
Thank you! I subscribe too and I've been increasingly pissed off by embedded prejudices in their reporting. And don't get me started on their headline writers, who often add spin to fairly clean articles, even sometimes changing the entire meaning of the article.
I have noticed this trend widespread in print and broadcast journalism as well. The NYT and WP used to label analytical pieces as News Analysis to make clear they were not straight reportage. They seem to have dropped the practice several years ago, perhaps causing reporters to be less aware of when their reporting was reflecting their own biases. I started souring on the PBS Newshour a couple of years ago when it began increasingly seemed an echo box of my own perspectives, not offering me anything that would challenge them. It’s reporters sometimes seem unaware of their own lack of objectivity. In the last year of the Trump presidency, one young Newshour reporter presented a summary of what she said was what Trump thought, not realizing that unless she was quoting him, her summary was her interpretation of what he thought and needed to be presented as such.
Being constantly aware of one’s own inherent biases is difficult, but we see now where the failure to make the effort is leading us. Journalists in particular need to try harder. Perhaps in print journalism bringing back the News Analysis label, formalizing the distinction between straight news reporting and analysis which usually reflects an particular perspective will help raise case consciousness of the distinction.
Most of us do not have time for 10,000 word articles. Columbia University Journalism school used to teach 3,000 word limits. For those with limited time there is THE WEEK which publishes excepts from other sources to give both sides. (I do subscribe to the NYTimes for intermittent online reading.)
I take the point, but I am not really sure this kind of neutrality is possible. From me it is enough to know‚ ‘where they are coming from,‘ so to say. If I know that, which is relatively easy with the Times, I feel I can make my own judgments. That said, I feel pretty well served by the New York Times. Part of this surely has to do with the fact that I share many of their views, though not all. I would even go a step further and say that I cannot imagine my life without the morning confrontation.
Both men are autocrats with a history of a contentious relationship with the United States. They appear to want to rewrite some of the international rules.