Maybe, just maybe, we are seeing the return of journalism back into news reporting —— Is Journalism Back? New York Times Editor Goes Ballistic on Biden, “Safe Space” Era “Finally, in a sweeping indictment of Trump-era journalism, Kahn pointed a finger at a generation of reporters who appeared to arrive in newsrooms unequipped to deal with unpleasant facts. Sounding offended on behalf of the paper’s reporting reputation, which took a beating with years of misses on stories like Russiagate and factual fiascoes like the “Caliphate” podcast, Kahn reminded Times reporters that the job is about facing and reporting difficult truths, not striving to remake reality into a campus-like safe space, in pursuit of any political “mission”:”
There're been plenty of one-off call outs and calls for actual journalism... Usually results in an ostracized "old man sitting next to me, making love to his tonic and gin...", mumbling to themselves something along the lines of "...it. was. just. a mission statement...".
Seems to me that the article is much more about Taibbi's criticism of journalism than it is about anything Kahn has to say. What do you think is the gist of Kahn's comments and why it signifies a return of journalism?
It’s the right sentiment. 92 is right that, even if an editor at Fox News said the same thing in regards to electing Trump, it wouldn’t mean that the nation’s journalism is without sin, but it is still nice to see this come from NYT.
Returning evening news shows back to being news shows and not entertainment fund raisers is only the first step toward regaining credibility in journalism. But with so many virtual rabbit holes providing confirmation bias to anyone who seeks it, it will be a long time before Americans trust the news again, if ever. The field just seems irreconcilably dystopian at this point.
Stuff like this is going to put Doug J Balloon out of business. Hard to be a parody account of something that gets progressively more absurd. Just so stupid Kahn logic Not to mention Sulzberger Matt’s point. NYT already gives a lot of oxygen and coverage to conservative vibe beliefs that are objectively wrong and harmful. But you can still find factual reporting that debunks conservative belief on page 18. That must stop. People like Matt are tired of being unable to logically support their position against liberals, and believe that contrary facts must be suppressed
I’ve said it before, but the journalism profession needs a self-governing journalism bar, like all professions have. They need journalists to police themselves, to ensure they stay true to their profession — objectively report on duly sourced facts. If a writing doesn’t meet that standard, classify it as an opinion piece. With the level of distrust so high in our media, most particularly the fringe media, there needs to accountability.
Sullberger has been aggressively pushing "Biden is senile" stories because he's butthurt that he won't do a sit down interview with the NYT. That's the opposite of responsible journalism.
I agree with the spirit of what you're saying, but I think journalism would be a tough profession to police/regulate relative to that of doctors, engineers, and lawyers. Everyone has the freedom of speech and freedom of the press, and anyone can claim to be doing journalism. There is no exam and no licensing requirement and really no way to get kicked out of the club. You could have a private group calling people out, but that would likely be a badge of honor for many.
I think, though, that there should be a licensure requirement to call oneself a journalist. Freedom of speech is not impeded by requiring someone be licensed to be deemed a journalist. People can still say and do what they want. But when we have such a high level of distrust in our media because the journalistic stories are no longer credible (or rise to the level of journalism), we need a fix.
Could there be a legal distinction drawn between being a member of the press and being a journalist? I don't know. To the extent the government itself were to regulate who gets to have and maintain a licensee to practice journalism, my gut is that there would be First Amendment problems with that given the freedom of the press. To me, it seems similar to the fact that anybody can declare themself a minister and spokesperson for god and start a church. I don't even think they've have to take an online class; they could probably just print out their own little certificate. I don't think we want government gatekeeping in those areas even if we are worried about people falling for con artists.
The idea of an "official press" seems pretty far removed from a democratic society, and I'm not sure this will solve the problem of media trust either, since people will still be skeptical of institutions in a society that is hostile to institutions for all those same reasons of exclusivity and credentialing in order to take part in them. Ultimately authority (in the sense of being trusted) should be earned by doing good and reliable work, not credentialed by gatekeepers.
Yep. It's sick. Sulzberger thinks the NYT will be immune if they support DT now, which reminds me of and The Onion ACLU Defends Nazis' Right To Burn Down ACLU Headquarters ACLU Defends Nazis' Right To Burn Down ACLU Headquarters PublishedOctober 14, 2003 NEW YORK—At a press conference Monday, American Civil Liberties Union officials announced that the organization will go to court to defend a neo-Nazi group's right to burn down ACLU headquarters. ACLU lawyers Nancy Edelman and Harvey Gross talk to reporters about their fight to allow Nazis to burn down ACLU headquarters on Nov. 25. ACLU president Nadine Strossen told reporters that her organization intends to "vigorously and passionately defend" the Georgia chapter of the American Nazi Party's First Amendment right to freely express its hatred of the ACLU by setting its New York office ablaze on Nov. 25.
Someone can be a member of the press and not be licensed as a journalist. I guess the perfect example would be a beat reporter, who writes about the team and offers opinion about the state of the team. The problem we find ourselves with the onslaught of alt-publications and social media, is that we are all mislead as to when someone is writing a journalistic report, versus guessing at what something might be. I think a reader is entitled to know whether a story rises to the level of journalism.
Typically, professionals are licensed by the state where they practice. I don’t see why that shouldn’t be the case for journalists, although maybe the answer is that there a national license. I just want them to self-govern and police themselves. We need a solution to a democracy-threatening problem of distrust of the media.
The NYT is not a monolithic beast. There are a few traditional conservatives and many more practical liberals in addition to the wokesters. Countless times I have read/heard somebody who is critical of the NYT as propaganda turn around and quote the NYT on an issue which they agree with.
No. Far too many profoundly subjective poorly prepared leftie journos. Any improvement in journalism will take several generations and require the total restructure of journalism schools. They’ve produced under performing non-professionals for the last 60 years so any change will be “long time coming”.
Is journalism back because Kahn used some platitudes you like? Did journalism go anywhere? If anything, I think Kahn harmed his own credibility by implying that the New York Times makes journalistic and editorial decisions based on what polling says are the most salient issues.
Going to have some massive First Amendment problems there, with both the Free Speech and Free Press Clauses.
