Phil, thanks. (Onlookers should know that Phil has a long background as a reporter and writer, and as an innovator in the tech industry.)
As you recall, eons ago in the book Breaking the News I was talking about how a constantly nihilistic, "it's all a game" "they're all crooks" approach from "serious" news outlets would inevitably driv…
Phil, thanks. (Onlookers should know that Phil has a long background as a reporter and writer, and as an innovator in the tech industry.)
As you recall, eons ago in the book Breaking the News I was talking about how a constantly nihilistic, "it's all a game" "they're all crooks" approach from "serious" news outlets would inevitably drive people away from public life and from the news as well. If it's *entirely* rigged and hopeless, if everything is cynical, why even spend your time? By comparison, that was from a lost Edenic age.
There was a recent column from, I think, the Nieman site about this same phenomenon: If the message of news organizations is unrelieved bleakness, why are people supposed to engage. (To spell out the obvious point: OF COURSE the media need to report on all the things that are bad, from climate change to corruption and abuse etc.) It's the frame of things *only* being rigged that does damage — and also distorts reality, and denies people knowledge and "agency" about approaches that might work.
Completely disagree with you about the scourge of unnamed sources. Because this piece was getting so long, I didn't go into that. And the scourge of predictions.
Agree about the spelling bee, and their "variety" puzzles in the Sunday magazine.
Unnamed sources are certainly valuable and necessary. But isn’t this term abused by some reporters to justify their viewpoint? And do they always even exist?
I’m willing to engage with bleak news but not necessarily bleak prognostications.
The longer I work in this business, the more reluctant I am to use an unnamed source.
There are circumstances where it is necessary. For instance: reporting from China. Or an expose on various abuses.
But it should never be used as cover for personal criticism or axe-grinding. I would put in several links here, but I can't find them at the moment and you know what I am talking about.
Phil, thanks. (Onlookers should know that Phil has a long background as a reporter and writer, and as an innovator in the tech industry.)
As you recall, eons ago in the book Breaking the News I was talking about how a constantly nihilistic, "it's all a game" "they're all crooks" approach from "serious" news outlets would inevitably drive people away from public life and from the news as well. If it's *entirely* rigged and hopeless, if everything is cynical, why even spend your time? By comparison, that was from a lost Edenic age.
There was a recent column from, I think, the Nieman site about this same phenomenon: If the message of news organizations is unrelieved bleakness, why are people supposed to engage. (To spell out the obvious point: OF COURSE the media need to report on all the things that are bad, from climate change to corruption and abuse etc.) It's the frame of things *only* being rigged that does damage — and also distorts reality, and denies people knowledge and "agency" about approaches that might work.
Completely disagree with you about the scourge of unnamed sources. Because this piece was getting so long, I didn't go into that. And the scourge of predictions.
Agree about the spelling bee, and their "variety" puzzles in the Sunday magazine.
Unnamed sources are certainly valuable and necessary. But isn’t this term abused by some reporters to justify their viewpoint? And do they always even exist?
I’m willing to engage with bleak news but not necessarily bleak prognostications.
Great subject for more discussions.
Phil, yes:
The longer I work in this business, the more reluctant I am to use an unnamed source.
There are circumstances where it is necessary. For instance: reporting from China. Or an expose on various abuses.
But it should never be used as cover for personal criticism or axe-grinding. I would put in several links here, but I can't find them at the moment and you know what I am talking about.