The 2016 front page you reproduced illustrates one of the biggest issues in improving political journalism: there is a huge "sunk cost" problem. Any serious effort in this direction would have to involve accounting for that page and its possible consequences, and doing so would implicate everyone in Times editorship from Dean Baquet forw…
The 2016 front page you reproduced illustrates one of the biggest issues in improving political journalism: there is a huge "sunk cost" problem. Any serious effort in this direction would have to involve accounting for that page and its possible consequences, and doing so would implicate everyone in Times editorship from Dean Baquet forward. The page cannot be substantively defended, and its possible effects were appalling -- which would make the exercise very painful, and costly to the paper's reputation and self-image. Nor is this the only such situation involved in all the years of denial, and the toll for accountability keeps rising.
As well, a reformation project would require admitting that the "industry" of supposed "left-wing" critics that Maggie Haberman recently disparaged has regularly been right, and that in treating its members with disdain the Times has equally regularly been wrong. Doing so would also be excruciating.
What would motivate journalistic leaders to accept that amount of professional pain -- especially when they have available the option of "refuge-seeking" (in Jay Rosen's term) by continuing to evade the issue? That's not to say that emphasizing the necessity for improvement as you and others do is pointless. On the contrary, it is of enormous value, both for the record and for the chance that this advice will at some point be taken seriously. It is just to make clear that the problem is substantial and in many ways getting larger.
The 2016 front page you reproduced illustrates one of the biggest issues in improving political journalism: there is a huge "sunk cost" problem. Any serious effort in this direction would have to involve accounting for that page and its possible consequences, and doing so would implicate everyone in Times editorship from Dean Baquet forward. The page cannot be substantively defended, and its possible effects were appalling -- which would make the exercise very painful, and costly to the paper's reputation and self-image. Nor is this the only such situation involved in all the years of denial, and the toll for accountability keeps rising.
As well, a reformation project would require admitting that the "industry" of supposed "left-wing" critics that Maggie Haberman recently disparaged has regularly been right, and that in treating its members with disdain the Times has equally regularly been wrong. Doing so would also be excruciating.
What would motivate journalistic leaders to accept that amount of professional pain -- especially when they have available the option of "refuge-seeking" (in Jay Rosen's term) by continuing to evade the issue? That's not to say that emphasizing the necessity for improvement as you and others do is pointless. On the contrary, it is of enormous value, both for the record and for the chance that this advice will at some point be taken seriously. It is just to make clear that the problem is substantial and in many ways getting larger.
Yes, thank you, another important clarifying (and cautionary) note.