Why The New York Times Still Matters
Claire Berlinski, Ed. ·
Dec 9, 2010 at 4:42am
Is any other major American news organ covering the conflict in the Western Sahara like this?
Not that I've noticed.
- Comment (17)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Sep '10
Re: Why The New York Times Still Matters
The Washington Post also published an article on the conflict a few days ago. By the way, have you read David Keene's recent column on the issue? He got some folks from Morroccan advocacy groups really upset.
Re: Why The New York Times Still Matters
As time goes on, there is less and less of this sort of coverage in The New York Times. As income from subscriptions and advertising declines, as The Boston Globe's losses continue, the Times cuts back, cuts back, and cuts back again. I remember having a conversation in Berlin with Times columnist Roger Cohen in 2006 on the cutbacks in money for travel already then underway. Now it is worse.
Jul '10
Re: Why The New York Times Still Matters
The tragedy of the New York Times is that instead of looking at this story as an event of significance to the US and its foreign policy, as an appeal to our humanity, or even as an objective, dispassionate report of events in a far-off place, the Times' past history has forced me to ask, "What are they up to here?"
Aug '10
Re: Why The New York Times Still Matters
Exactly the feeling I get reading through the articles. As Peter Robinson said, it's a decaying corpse already. The paper has so betrayed our trust that we can only read it with a skepticism that borders on incredulity. That is too bad, but then there are things like the KC Star that have ventured beyond the pale.
Jul '10
Re: Why The New York Times Still Matters
I grant that the NYTimes has some diminishing use. It sends correspondents to these blank spots on the map for updates on their current state of chaos and barbarism. Things never look good and Al Qaeda seems always to be "threatening to gain a foothold." Burning desert and apathetic people anchored in the 7th Century. Do we really need to get mixed up in their immiseration with this full plate of our own problems staring us in the face? It is back here at home that the Times can't be trusted to fill in the blank spaces, particularly when politics are involved, or it and the left are trying to win us over to the latest swerve the popular culture takes toward "transgressive" depravity.
Dec '10
Re: Why The New York Times Still Matters
News Flash! Muslims behaving badly! Humans acting inhumane!
Where can we get more stories like this! Please hurry!
In the meantime, enjoy a Christmas carol you've never heard before at Ricochet.
May '10
Re: Why The New York Times Still Matters
And what happens when they cut back? Do the reporters and sources they lay off simply disappear? Of course not. Reporters write their stories for whoever can pay the most money and offer the most readers. As the Times withers, those reporters can work for other companies.
So let's stop this silly argument that goes: "Only the Times covers stories like these, so we need the Times." That paper's resources can and will be absorbed by other companies.
Though, as I've said before, I doubt the New York Times will ever die completely. More's the pity.
Re: Why The New York Times Still Matters
I wish this were true. But the truth is that foreign news just doesn't get reported.
Re: Why The New York Times Still Matters
Aaron is in part correct, but there is a larger problem. Newspapers are going out of business all across the country. The reason is that the internet has upset their business plan. The lifeblood of newspapers is advertising -- classified advertising, in particular -- and this has been true now for something like two centuries. Craiglist has taken these revenues, and no one to date has figured out a substitute. I do not mean that the news business has died or even that it will die. Nor would I want to defend The New York Times, which deserves its fate. But it is not yet clear who will gather the news and how they will meet their costs. We will soon see whether the paywall is the answer. I fear that not enough people will care enough to be willing to pay the full cost of news-gathering. And in the absence of news-gathering, the politicians will become invisible -- which will relieve them of the need to be responsive to those they purport to represent.
Edited on Dec 9, 2010 at 7:21amMay '10
Re: Why The New York Times Still Matters
Claire Berlinski, Ed.
I wish this were true. But the truth is that foreign news just doesn't get reported.
It's a big world, Claire. There are plenty of stories the New York Times does not cover every single day. Even if they did cover everything, who would have time to read it all except writers and retirees?
That news got reported. You know about it. You just wish everyone cared as much as you do so it received more attention.
As Paul points out, newspaper coverage is shifting to the internet. With news aggregators, Google and browser bookmarks, it's not a problem if the information is scattered around.
And what professional journalists do not immediately notice or investigate, private citizens and organizations report via blogs, forums and YouTube. If such a report is shallow but the subject is important, a professional news organization or advocacy group can investigate the matter further.
Yes, non-professionals. Personally, the phrase "journalistic integrity" always made me laugh. Ethics training does not make one ethical. Nor does college make one a good observer, researcher, analyst or writer.
May '10
Re: Why The New York Times Still Matters
By the way, I sympathize.
And I don't mean by my last comment that training and experience have no value. Obviously, they do. But the quality of journalism boils down to the character and skills of individuals, as well as one's willingness to learn, be self-critical, be skeptical and exercise good moral judgment.
Journalism, like all human endeavors, fits into a Bell Curve. Some is excellent, some is crap, and most is somewhere between. Much of that has to do with the free will of the individuals participating. The New York Times has become a corrupt organization. It encourages some good practices and some truly odious ones. I believe it's a net drag on American journalism now, but I acknowledge that I could be wrong.
Ricochet should remind us that many non-professionals have the worldly experience, connections and good judgment to improve our collective knowledge and understanding of the world. We need both professionals and non-professionals. I believe the New York Times is replaceable as a professional source.
Edited on Dec 9, 2010 at 8:09amMay '10
Re: Why The New York Times Still Matters
In 2007 a local woman, almost to term with her second child, was murdered by the father of her children, a man who was also a city policeman. The brutality of it all made headlines around the world.
Had the county's newspaper put the story behind a paywall it would have been a disaster for them. Because every word that they paid their reporters to write was picked up by the Associated Press and printed online in thousands of sites worldwide for free.
Exclusive content is what will make it work and until papers ditch their AP contracts paywalls will be useless.
It takes three years to cancel (you read that right) an AP contract. Dozens of major dailies have begun the process, including Mr. Lilek's employer if I am not mistaken.
Nov '10
Re: Why The New York Times Still Matters
Claire Berlinski, Ed.: Is any other major American news organ covering the conflict in the Western Sahara like this?
Not that I've noticed.
Even a blind pig can find an acorn.
May '10
Re: Why The New York Times Still Matters
I'm with Aaron. It all seems so inconceivable because the business model has not yet emerged. But Dr. Rahe's assertion that without newspapers politicans will be allowed to run rampant is laughable in the context of the Internet. There is far more scrutiny of politicians' actions than ever before. It is less mediated and perhaps less reliable but that simply describes a period of transition.
Ultimately the Internet will allow the folks that value international news highly to connect with those in a position to provide it. A newspaper is an incredibly inefficient means to reach all the people that want to read about Turkey. But the Internet is a highly efficient method for same.
The landscape needs to be reconstituted, but it will be. The idea that news can only be revealed to us by newspapers is just plain silly and part of the media's narcissistic psychosis.
So band together with all your journalist buddies in Turkey Claire and start a site with high-end proprietary content and a wicked firewall. I bet revenues from governmental bodies alone would prove quite lucrative.
Sep '10
Re: Why The New York Times Still Matters
Aaron Miller
And I don't mean by my last comment that training and experience have no value. Obviously, they do. But the quality of journalism boils down to the character and skills of individuals, as well as one's willingness to learn, be self-critical, be skeptical and exercise good moral judgment.
Investigating complex issues also requires a lot of time and manpower, something that amateurs don't have, and professional organizations are more and more unwilling and/or unable to provide. Sure, the most important foreign events do get reported at one place or the other, but most aren't investigated in depth -- not necessarily because the reporters are bad, but simply because there aren't enough of them around; they simply can't devote all of their attention to a single story for weeks, sometimes not even to a single country. Also, don't expect much (long lasting) citizen journalism in countries that are impoverished and run by dictators.
Edited on Dec 9, 2010 at 10:03amDec '10
Re: Why The New York Times Still Matters
Claire, you make a good point. The NYT has more comprehensive coverage than anyone else. And this explains in part why many of the most informed still read it. But, I suspect as the NYT continues to succumb to the decay its medium and it biases condemn it to, the paper will become less and less exceptional.
Another important question, then, is whether the WSJ whose star is still rising, will take up the task of filling in the blanks on the international scene. I sure hope so.
May '10
Re: Why The New York Times Still Matters
Good points, Peter. The world does need big news corporations who can fund some ventures.
Peter Hintz
Also, don't expect much (long lasting) citizen journalism in countries that are impoverished and run by dictators.
I don't understand how even professional journalists are allowed to operate in such countries... except when they're sympathetic to the dictators.