I write in praise of The New York Times.
The New York Times gets kicked around from both the right and the left. I cut it some slack. They do important work.
An article today makes my point.
The New York Times is "mainstream" news, created through the old-school process of reporters who talk to sources whose words are quoted or summarized. Then editors review and fact-check those stories, summarize the stories in headlines, and curate and prioritize the stories. Mainstream news formerly was "the news." It was reproducible. News stories were essentially similar to those of other reporters who consulted the same sources. They constituted "reality." The alternative was National Enquirer invention, neighborhood rumor, or ignorance.
Now mainstream news is just one version of "what really happened" amid stories in social media, opinion journalism, and direct-to-consumer communication by people with a story to tell. Sourced, reproducible news is less clickable than made-up stuff, and it is far more expensive to create.
I was struck by this morning's story about the suspected killer of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. Luigi Mangione was arrested in Pennsylvania mid-day yesterday.
The New York Times lets me share ten articles a month to non-subscribers. Click here for a link to their story. In the time between his arrest and publication of the story last night reporters learned about his prominent Baltimore-area family, and that he had graduated as valedictorian at an expensive private high school. They talked with former classmates at the high school and at his college (the University of Pennsylvania), talked with his Hawaii landlord for his group-living arrangement, and they talked with family members and friends who described his interests and his health problems. Reporters had seen x-ray images of his misaligned back; they talked with the police who arrested him; and they reviewed his handwritten "manifesto" condemning the health insurance industry.The long list of reporters who created this story is a form of blunt body language. Their very presence and bulk tell a story. The article begins with images of its primary authors:
At the end of the article, 22 people are credited for having contributed to the reporting.
Then, of course, there are editors and web people and advertising people. How many people does it take to screw in the lightbulb that shines light on Luigi Mangioni? Twenty six is just the start.
The advertising model of paying for journalism doesn't work anymore. The model that works is paid subscriptions. If you want news, you need to pay for it.
I don't pile onto the criticism of the NYT. I don't care that it didn't endorse Kamala Harris, a criticism from progressives. I don't think the NYT is "fake news." I don't care that some of its staff members are a "woke cancel-culture progressive mob," a criticism leveled from the right. I don't care that the NYT is elitist, hiring too many people from Harvard. I don't care -- not anymore anyway -- that the NYT had article after article on Hillary Clinton's emails back in 2016. I don't care if it presumed that the Hunter Biden laptop story promoted by Republicans was false, when it turned out to be true. (It sure looked suspicious, coming as it did from a laptop supposedly "abandoned" and offered up just before an election by the GOP.) The NYT is in the arena, so a lot of criticism comes its way, and a lot of it is valid. Sometimes it will get stuff wrong. I expect that.
I subscribe and read it because they do something America needs, even if it is done imperfectly. They send reporters out to try to find out what happened and then tell us about it.
[Note: To receive this blog daily by email, go to: https://petersage.substack.com Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]
10 comments:
I remember the days when we shared a common reality and could talk to people who had different opinions. Now we have people who believe in facts and those who consider whatever they don’t want to hear “fake news.” The latter live in an alternate reality where our free press is “the enemy of the people,” climate change is a hoax, Trump won the 2020 election, Democrats are “the enemy from within,” immigrants are “poisoning the blood of our country,” etc.
But don’t worry. They’re in power now and have a great plan for mass deportations. It will be expensive, but they also have a plan to get rid of wasteful government spending on things like education and regulations that protect the public. Anyway, I’m sure they can get Mexico to pay for it, just as they did for the Great Wall of Trump.
I also subscribe and view doing so as a matter of pride. I also contribute to the Gaurdian, public radio and the Washington post, but won’t renew the post. I do so with the belief that truth and integrity matter. Some may dismiss these venues as woke, but I sure don’t as I view them as being honest as best they can.
Peter,
Thank you for this. I agree with your statement:
"The advertising model of paying for journalism doesn't work anymore. The model that works is paid subscriptions. If you want news, you need to pay for it."
Back in the day, we had print daily newspapers, and weekly and monthly magazines for other printed news and commentary.
News is supposed to be the who, what, when, where, and sometimes why. Unfortunately, not many realize that. And as for "why", that is what the opinion page is for.
When advertising stopped paying for the full cost of covering the news, the printed media need to stray from the assumption that subscriptions only paid for for the distribution.
I have been fortunate to be able to afford to pay for full subscriptions to all the media I consume, foreign and domestic.
I have subscribed to the NY Times ever since they had doorstep delivery to my rather remote Washington County, Oregon home ever since it was first offered decades ago, and long before there was an email or internet online option.
I did the same for the daily Oregonian, the Valley Times, and the Wall Street Journal. They all helped me a lot during my working years.
When it was possible to get everything online, I continued to pay for the full online digital access if offered. I still do that today, even though I no longer live in Oregon. I also subscribe to several other newspapers. The Tampa Bay Times, the Leesburg Commercial, The Orlando Sentinel, the Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times.
There are several online only news sources that I subscribe to: The Free Press, Epoch Times, National Review, Commentary, and many, many others I get with a paid subscription to Feedly, and Readly, which gives me access to world-wide press and magazines, both in English and native languages with free translation tools.
Do I read them all every day? Of course not. My Feedly app gives me a daily summary of online and mainstream media stories that I can peruse as I need too.
Another benefit is access to the media archives of almost all of them.
I especially liked the front page image of the NY Times for 1946/47 that covered the Arab invasion of Palestine after Israel was created by the United Nations.
No one has the time to read everything published. I am glad we live in a free society whaer I can not only read many sources on a particular matter, but also better understand the many sides of the issues of the day.
Google was a godsend for me, as it made it very easy to search for additional information on just about everything that interests me.
The several thousands I spend each year for subscriptions to print and video media has helped me to be successful.
Do I agree with everything I read from all these publications? Of course not.
I do thank the people who helped to educate me and to share their knowledge that helped me move a lot from that basic reading, writing, and arithmetic. The development of my personal critical thinking skills have also been very important and helpful to me.
I like to read the comments here, and to other online stories. It gives me a better picture of people around the world. I sometimes sort on most popular or most replies, as that helps understand the always present group think.
Yes, online sources are sometimes more one-sided () than necessary, as this forum sometimes in. It is however a window into Oregon communities. There are right, left, center-left, center-right, liberal, and independent comments and stories here. Just as there are with almost all online commentary.
Peter, thank you for your daily posts. I agree with you sometimes, but not always. Keep up the good work.
As to those others who wonder why I still pay attention to Oregon, now that I live in Florida, it's very simple: I experienced first hand the shift from very Red Oregon, to Blue, and then to very Progressive Oregon. I experienced it first hand since the mid-70s after I graduated from college in NY.
Those changes? Some good, some not so good.
I got to Oregon in 1986, and experienced that same change from red to blue to very progressive, especially in Portland.
My wife and I started looking for a house to buy in 1989, but we were very picky and it took us until 1991 to find a house we liked. Incredibly luckily for us, the house turned out to be in a surrounding suburb of Portland and not in Portland itself or Multnomah County. So we have been spared the living conditions and tax results of the pathological collapse of Portland into woke pathology that's occurred since around 2020.
Where did the New York Times reputation for left/liberal bias come from?
* Editorial page editor James Bennett was defenestrated because of a (young, woke) staff rebellion resulting from his decision to print an op-ed article by US Senator Tom Cotton.
* Top health and science reporter Don McNeil was defenestrated because he
had uttered The Word That Must Not Be Spoken By White People (tm) in response to a student question on a trip to Peru he was leading. He was asked whether he thought it was right for an eighth grade student to have been suspended for using that word. He replied by asking, “Did she actually call someone a (Forbidden By Woke Ideology Word), or was she singing a rap song or quoting a book title or something?” This apparently led to the usual uproar from the young woke Red Guards at the New York Times.
* The proportion of Democrats to Republicans on the staff of the New York Times, as measured by things like political donations.
It's not that they don't sometimes do good work, it's that you have to really watch out for how their liberal bias slants things and how their confirmation bias prevents them from presenting the full range of news and opinion.
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. The New York Times' clock apparently has stopped at 8:45, with both hands pointing firmly to the left.
Bari Weiss self-fenestrated (?) over the Bennett affair as well. The Times is proud purveyor of the fabulist, er, history project, “The 1619 Project”.
The Times still boasts Walter Duranty’s Pulitzer, for reporting that Stalin’s show trials were wholly just, and his mass starvation’s a Western slander.
In 2008, The Times published—front page, above the fold—via anonymous sourcing the slur that Republican presidential nominee John McCain was having an affair with a lobbyist. Paid a settlement later, but Obama won.
Still a formidable news operation for all that. But as noted, biased leftward, not least in its now-open conflation of opinion with “straight” news.
There was a time when Republicans were actually rational and cared about more than money and power. For example, Republican Gov. Tom McCall gave us the Oregon Beach Bill for which we are eternally grateful. Today, Republicans would walk out of the legislature before signing on to something so radically far left.
No one will probably read this as it’s the next day, but it seems to me when newspaper or tv news reports facts, it gets labeled as woke rather than just reporting the truth. Woke labels is essentially name calling not behavior specific.
Dave, you comment applies to a view, but I've not seen much of that.
Expand your reading scope, and look at the many sides of the issues of the day.
Respectfully,
Another Mike
"Alternative facts" are not the side of any issue.
Post a Comment