Run by a Soviet Jewish legal scholar, the blog took on the ACA and is now hosted by the ‘Washington Post’
And more often than not, spot on.
From The Atlantic, via Longreads—”six syllabi from journalism professors on what” journalism students should be reading.
In an age when objectivity of journalists is open to question, I’m not sure how to interpret these recommendations.
From The Washington Post.
I particularly dislike “national conversation.” Those who claim to want it, don’t. It requires listening, not just endlessly repeating your point of view.
From The Browser:
The editor of the Guardian talks to us about brave new frontiers for journalism, the hunt for a business model to pay for it all, and what he hopes (and fears)…about press regulation
From Wired, an article by Steven Levy about Narrative Science, a company that does this. Its cofounder has a prediction:
I asked Kristian Hammond what percentage of news would be written by computers in 15 years. “More than 90 percent.”
I am presuming they could still structure bias so New York Times readers wouldn’t feel cheated.
Does it matter that most people telling us about the state of the media are, either through their professional conflicts of interest or career-long fixations, missing or severely underplaying the liberatory effects of the formerly captive audience becoming sophisticated and productive journalism consumers and creators? Unfortunately, yes. If Steven Brill wants to convince newspapers to throw their content behind paywalls, that’s his (and their) business. (And, as an editor of a magazine that puts all its content up for free, it’s my business, too—hurry up, Brill!) Ditto for newspaper columnists who want to further alienate their dwindling readerships by accusing them of undermining democracy when they read stuff for free. If nothing else, this blame-the-consumer routine is some of the best evidence yet for how an entitled, monopolist-style mentality crept into the worldview of a profession once noted for its cutthroat sense of competition. Instead of begging the audience to stay, the old guard is trying to charge them a steep exit fee.
But the problem here is that the legacy-centric view is bleeding into the sausage-making of public policy. The A&P Organization Men aren’t just spinning their own industrial decline and confusing it with the fate of democracy, they’re actively advising the Federal Trade Commission on how laws might be rewritten to punish news aggregators—from Google to individual bloggers—whose work is perceived to hurt them. Dollars from every single taxpaying American may be redistributed to an industry that until very recently was among the most profitable in U.S. history. And like the last round of newspaper protectionism—the Newspaper Protection Act of 1970—any rulemaking or legislation that comes out of this process will almost axiomatically reward deep-pocketed incumbents at the direct expense of new entrants, all in an effort to delay the inevitable.
Update: From Frank Wilson, “Democracy is imperiled when newspapers shill for those in power.”
From Listverse, the introduction:
Looking back upon the heyday of the newspaper industry, images of angry cigar-smoking editors, journalists with fedoras carrying “press” cards and sharpened pencils, and little Dickensian children on the street corner shouting “Read all about it!” are evoked. That was back when nothing MORE than newspapers existed, that is in the form of competition. Yes, the paper was as cutting edge as the refrigerator back when the nation relied on its local street urchin to find out what was new in the world. Nowadays, in spite of a good many paperboys who regularly find summer employment, it’s the tech-savvy youth that are primarily responsible for the undoing of anachronistic traditions. You’d think an industry whose very purpose is to keep regular tabs on the status quo would be able to adapt to an ever-changing environment, but such was apparently not the case as an industry of old dogs failed to learn any new tricks (instead they just continued licking themselves). Here’s a look at the top ten reasons why not all traditions are timeless, and particularly why the newspaper industry is folding under itself (and being held in place with a rubber band).
Read them all at the link. I particularly appreciated number 8: “There’s no Journalism in the Journalism.”
This article found at Wheat From Chaff is from September 14th, 2009, but it still seems pertinent:
It seems to me that lately, the prescriptions for the future of news issued frequently by Internet celebrity (and not so celebrated) journalists and pundits have been including items on “truth.” Most recently, Dan Gillmor, in “Eleven Things I’d Do If I Ran a News Organization,” said,
6. We would refuse to do stenography and call it journalism. If one faction or party to a dispute is lying, we would say so, with the accompanying evidence. If we learned that a significant number of people in our community believed a lie about an important person or issue, we would make it part of an ongoing mission to help them understand the truth.