The US Media's View from Nowhere

[Puppycow]

The New York Times' Public Editor recently sparked a discussion by asking the following question:

"I’m looking for reader input on whether and when New York Times news reporters should challenge 'facts' that are asserted by newsmakers they write about."

Seems like a no-brainer, doesn't it? The best reporters don't simply pass on the talking points of the people they cover without scrutiny, do they? The laziest kind of reporting is the "he-said, she-said" kind, where the reporter gathers quotes from people on various sides of an issue and simply passes them on without trying to sort out which statements are true and which are false.

Here's an interesting discussion on this concept of the "View from Nowhere" that reporters often adopt so as to appear impartial and objective:
The View from Nowhere: Questions and Answers

(This Q and A was conducted by Jay Rosen, solo. He did the questions and the answers.)
Q. You’ve been using this phrase, “the view from nowhere,” for a while–

A. Yeah, since 2003…

Q. So what do you mean by it?

A. Three things. In pro journalism, American style, the View from Nowhere is a bid for trust that advertises the viewlessness of the news producer. Frequently it places the journalist between polarized extremes, and calls that neither-nor position “impartial.” Second, it’s a means of defense against a style of criticism that is fully anticipated: charges of bias originating in partisan politics and the two-party system. Third: it’s an attempt to secure a kind of universal legitimacy that is implicitly denied to those who stake out positions or betray a point of view. American journalists have almost a lust for the View from Nowhere because they think it has more authority than any other possible stance.

Q. Well, does it?

A. What authority there is in the position of viewlessness is unearned– like the snooty guy who, when challenged, says, “Madam, I have a PhD.” In journalism, real authority starts with reporting. Knowing your stuff, mastering your beat, being right on the facts, digging under the surface of things, calling around to find out what happened, verifying what you heard. “I’m there, you’re not, let me tell you about it.” Illuminating a murky situation because you understand it better than almost anyone. Doing the work! Having a track record, a reputation for reliability is part of it, too. But that comes from doing the work.

 

[theprestige]

Actually, it seems like a pretty canny move on the part of the NYT. Investigative journalism is hard. It's expensive, time-consuming, and quite often unpleasant for the subject of the investigation. It may also be unpleasant for the publisher, and even unpleasant for some percentage of the readership.

Puff pieces, by comparison, are much easier. They're cheaper to write, less likely to offend the subjects, less likely to cause trouble for the publisher, and less likely to alienate the readers.

All that remains is to conduct market research, and find out just how much of an appearance of "facts" the readers desire. Since the readers are paying, it pays to find out what they want, and then give it to them.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Actually, it seems like a pretty canny move on the part of the NYT. Investigative journalism is hard. It's expensive, time-consuming, and quite often unpleasant for the subject of the investigation. It may also be unpleasant for the publisher, and even unpleasant for some percentage of the readership.

Puff pieces, by comparison, are much easier. They're cheaper to write, less likely to offend the subjects, less likely to cause trouble for the publisher, and less likely to alienate the readers Advertisers.

All that remains is to conduct market research, and find out just how much of an appearance of "facts" the readers desire. Since the readers Advertisers are paying, it pays to find out what they want, and then give it to them.

I mean, let's be honest here. Hard hitting journalism by the major news outlets stopped when 24 hour TV news channels started getting popular. They are chasing viewers (and by extension the advertisers) by trying to be the first and being the first almost always means no time to do the background and fact checking. The papers end up not being able to do the in-depth reporting because people now want the news fast and in sound bites, just like they see on TV.

Then there's the hazards of confusing opinions with facts. That's where the editors come in and from this article it sure looks like they are abrogating that responsibility by asking their readers what they should do instead of simply DOING THEIR DAMN JOB like they were (hopefully) taught in journalism school.