Take-down of NY Times reporting standards in Newsweek.

[astonas]

Newsweek is taking the NY Times to task for research and reporting failings.

The immediate focus happens to be a political story, but I believe Newsweek is correct in focusing on the media standards question instead. I think even the most partisan reader would agree that the Times might have trouble remaining a paper of record if its reporting has sunk to this level. (And the evidence seems to suggest it has...)

Caveat lector I suppose.

[Woodsman]

Re: Take-down of NY Times reporting standards in Newsweek.

...reporting has sunk to this level. (And the evidence seems to suggest it has...) Caveat lector I suppose.

Love how the piece ends with a correction.

First day on the job, my first out of college, I stepped into the newsroom of a small circulation daily as the youngest full-timer on the reporting staff at 20 years of age. The senior reporter I shadowed those first few months was in his 30s and the city editor to whom we reported was in her 40s. The managing editor was in his 50s and a constant presence in the place since first hired as a copy boy/cub reporter decades before. If some error slipped into a story, well it was you and your editor getting the treatment in the old man's office.

Walk into a newsroom today and you'll see it filled with eager 20-somethings and strain to see a gray hair in the room. These kids report to other 20-somethings who report to 30-somethings. Many of them are interns or stringers paid by the word and mileage reimbursement. Those hired full-time scrape by on meager salaries and are looking to move out and up as fast as possible. The best ones leave for well-compensated corporate PR work; sometimes for the companies and politicos they cover. The rest are chasing a dream or about to wake up from it.

It's nigh-well impossible for someone to make a middle-class livelihood on a beat reporter's wages. It was always tough, but doable. Then came the period of consolidation and everything changed. Where once 90% of US media was controlled by fifty companies, today that 90% is controlled by six companies. Where once newsrooms were expected to run at a loss, today the bean counters account for every pencil and sheaf of paper.

So nowadays you have to be a wet behind the ears, naive kid to think you can "make it" in the business. The grown ups, well they have bills to pay. You gets what you pays for and nobody pays for news anymore.

[wayiwalk]

Re: Take-down of NY Times reporting standards in Newsweek.

This gets to the inflation that is creeping up everywhere in terms of quality of goods that you are paying for....be it information (news), technology ( products that last weeks rather than years), or consumables (smaller packaging, same price).

[astonas]

Re: Take-down of NY Times reporting standards in Newsweek.

Love how the piece ends with a correction.

First day on the job, my first out of college, I stepped into the newsroom of a small circulation daily as the youngest full-timer on the reporting staff at 20 years of age. The senior reporter I shadowed those first few months was in his 30s and the city editor to whom we reported was in her 40s. The managing editor was in his 50s and a constant presence in the place since first hired as a copy boy/cub reporter decades before. If some error slipped into a story, well it was you and your editor getting the treatment in the old man's office.

Walk into a newsroom today and you'll see it filled with eager 20-somethings and strain to see a gray hair in the room. These kids report to other 20-somethings who report to 30-somethings. Many of them are interns or stringers paid by the word and mileage reimbursement. Those hired full-time scrape by on meager salaries and are looking to move out and up as fast as possible. The best ones leave for well-compensated corporate PR work; sometimes for the companies and politicos they cover. The rest are chasing a dream or about to wake up from it.

It's nigh-well impossible for someone to make a middle-class livelihood on a beat reporter's wages. It was always tough, but doable. Then came the period of consolidation and everything changed. Where once 90% of US media was controlled by fifty companies, today that 90% is controlled by six companies. Where once newsrooms were expected to run at a loss, today the bean counters account for every pencil and sheaf of paper.

So nowadays you have to be a wet behind the ears, naive kid to think you can "make it" in the business. The grown ups, well they have bills to pay. You gets what you pays for and nobody pays for news anymore.

So, as someone who's been there, what's a possible solution?

Is there a way to resurrect, if not a variant of the old business model, then at least a new model that realigns the interests of the business with the interests of the public?

[Woodsman]

Re: Take-down of NY Times reporting standards in Newsweek.

So, as someone who's been there, what's a possible solution? Is there a way to resurrect, if not a variant of the old business model, then at least a new model that realigns the interests of the business with the interests of the public?

There is hope, only not for us. I see the present condition as a feature, not a bug. The poor quality of most journalism today is a symptom of a larger set of problems some of which we discuss here daily. I have absolute metaphysical certainty that it will get much worse. We have documented proof that the cloak and dagger boys have bought and paid for most of the major journalists starting with Ben Bradlee and Walter Lippmann and on folks like Bob Woodward and others today. And nobody cares. That's a separate issue, of course, but part of the problem just the same. And talk about it too much and be prepared to have some unpleasant label slapped on you by the legions of crypto fascists that serve as the Amen Chorus to power.It's not worth mussing ones hair over it, Astonas. Be happy with what you have. It's never going to get any better.

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Take-down of NY Times reporting standards in Newsweek.

Is there a way to resurrect, if not a variant of the old business model, then at least a new model that realigns the interests of the business with the interests of the public?

Before Letterman, there was Carson, and before Carson, Jack Parr. If you go back and look at the remaining snippets from Parr’s show you will be gob-smacked, literally watching the screen with your mouth open. James Thurber, James Baldwin, and others dominate a “talk” show with conversation and wit so elevated beyond what you watch today, you will demand an investigation. You can get this quality of thinking from Lapham, Lebowitz, Hedges, but only by rummaging around long hours or being tipped off by a friend. Jeff Bezoz bought the Washington Post and is hastening its transformation into My Weekly Reader. Some WaPo articles with enticing headlines are so short, I reload them sure they can’t be just 3 paragraphs long. Wrong. A recent commenter wrote, “Whatever you think about the Post, they’ve now got click bait down.”

[seobook]

Re: Take-down of NY Times reporting standards in Newsweek.

Is there a way to resurrect, if not a variant of the old business model, then at least a new model that realigns the interests of the business with the interests of the public?

The regional monopolies are gone. That's what funded so much of the old infrastructure.

Some publishers like the NYT are getting about 10% the CPM from their mobile pageviews they get from their desktop pageviews. And their online CPMs are of course far lower than their print ad rates. And then even they moved their mobile app to free. Smaller publishers also have less leverage than the bigger ones do.

There's also the issue of selection bias & confirmation bias (huge in politics, but also in almost every other big $ field). That feeds back into machine learning algorithms to drive personalizing social media feeds and personalize search results.

Then the shorter attention spans for quick snacking on media via social media platforms and mobile devices.

Then the constant measurement of traffic flow and the optimization of headlines around quick responses and maximizing virality.

Then the need for speed lowering fact checking as a priority.

Then the drift of talent into public relations, along with those who are external to key companies getting exclusives for shilling for those companies on a consistent basis, contrarians who are more honest getting cut off, etc.

That Google gives "innovation" slush fund contributions to some of the larger media institutions (while scraping content from so many parties to power their knowledge graph and featured instant answers in the search results) is an indication of just how broken the system is.

I think many niche sites are dying off. The rise of social media platforms & Google's Panda algorithm update killed a lot of sites which were high quality niche sites but not widely viral or branded and known. One almost has to go to the farcical end (like a Zero Hedge or such) to chase growth & remain relevant in many markets if one isn't willing to sell the main approved scripted narrative.

In-depth, balanced, and informed is not profitable in many cases.

There are even gems like this:

I often hear from readers that they would prefer a straight, neutral treatment — just the facts. But The Times has moved away from that, reflecting editors’ reasonable belief that the basics can be found in many news outlets, every minute of the day. They want to provide “value-added” coverage. - Margaret Sullivan, public editor from the New York Times

Here is another good recent example of the "value-added" coverage: an absurdly inaccurate exposé on NYC nail salons.

[geodrome]

Re: Take-down of NY Times reporting standards in Newsweek.

Sounds pretty dire. Many forces pulling in one direction and no counter forces.

[gwynedd1]

Re: Take-down of NY Times reporting standards in Newsweek.

Love how the piece ends with a correction.

First day on the job, my first out of college, I stepped into the newsroom of a small circulation daily as the youngest full-timer on the reporting staff at 20 years of age. The senior reporter I shadowed those first few months was in his 30s and the city editor to whom we reported was in her 40s. The managing editor was in his 50s and a constant presence in the place since first hired as a copy boy/cub reporter decades before. If some error slipped into a story, well it was you and your editor getting the treatment in the old man's office.

Walk into a newsroom today and you'll see it filled with eager 20-somethings and strain to see a gray hair in the room. These kids report to other 20-somethings who report to 30-somethings. Many of them are interns or stringers paid by the word and mileage reimbursement. Those hired full-time scrape by on meager salaries and are looking to move out and up as fast as possible. The best ones leave for well-compensated corporate PR work; sometimes for the companies and politicos they cover. The rest are chasing a dream or about to wake up from it.

It's nigh-well impossible for someone to make a middle-class livelihood on a beat reporter's wages. It was always tough, but doable. Then came the period of consolidation and everything changed. Where once 90% of US media was controlled by fifty companies, today that 90% is controlled by six companies. Where once newsrooms were expected to run at a loss, today the bean counters account for every pencil and sheaf of paper.

So nowadays you have to be a wet behind the ears, naive kid to think you can "make it" in the business. The grown ups, well they have bills to pay. You gets what you pays for and nobody pays for news anymore.

I work with a person that majored in journalism and graduated just before small town newspapers became USA Today. So I am very familiar with the item you mentioned. A good title for a periodical that insures there is no tomorrow.

Isn't it fascinating how this culture applies "economy of scale" to everything? At least now I see where they are going with the efficiency we could gain by all dying at once.