One of the comments on "How Your Comments Make Our Journalism Better/Reader responses add an extra dimension to Times articles, and a lot more" (NYT).
September 8, 2021
"The comments are no substitute for a Public Editor and since the Times did away with one, there's been very little accountability."
"After being a subscriber for decades, I often don't recognize the NY Times -- not for its inclusiveness, which I welcome -- but for its standards. Often misleading headlines and worse."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
21 comments:
1000 minds will always be better than one.
Comments are just a way to engage and keep paying subs. The commenters just reinforce each others' opinions. Liberal echo chamber.
The NYT is pure propaganda these days. Did the NYT report on the "Fuck Joe Biden" chants at college football games last Saturday. That was news and it is fit to print.
'Inclusiveness'? What does that mean in this context? The range of topics? The color or gender of the 'reporter' or opinion writer? Such a drivel inducing word, 'inclusiveness'.
They should invite Bari Weiss to offer some opinions on their 'standards'. She has, but not lately in their own paper. Now that would be inclusive.
The Public Editor was never a very alert watchdog, but it was better than nothing. Not every article allows comments and the Times does not respond to reader comments, so it's hard to see how the comments can substitute for someone whose job is to keep them honest.
If there were a surer path to turning your newspaper into a twitter-inspired echo chamber than having a comments section serve the function of a public editor, I'm hard pressed to thinking of one. Comments are (almost) exclusively the result of online engagement, rarely the product of more than a few moments of reflection, and all-too-prone to being flooded by people commenting to state their opinion rather than to correct some error of judgment or communication, and, of course.
Worse, assuming the comments really do drive change, the inevitable consequence of this arrangement is to go from "say what needs to be said" to "say what needs to be said in a way that people are ok with" to "say what people want to hear" to "say what people already think."
The only plus that I can think of is that at least they're by and large not written by journalists, which means there's a chance that they might be (1) insightful, and (2) not narrative-driven. But that's an argument for having a comments section, not for having the comments section function as an editor.
Compare and contrast the Althouse blog comments. True dialogue and clever comments. But most of us agree with each other as per the polls.
But that last "should Trump run" poll was sure interesting.
The public editor was like a bee. He could only sting once, and then he wasn't around anymore. The best you could hope for was that the public editor or some other staffer would write a damning report on the way out the door.
The idea that the internet means that media don't need public editors or ombudspeople anymore is ridiculous. The wide range of comment from the internet means that no one criticism or objection is more important than any other opinion, and the newspaper or magazine or network can simply ignore them all.
A big GIGO problem there. Very old news to most.
Their reason for existing has changed. Stop looking to them for the old business model.
Remember the NYT gave itself permission to abandon journalism because Trump was such a threat to humanity. They told their readers that. If you're just now figuring that out you should be reading USA Today for Kids.
The NYT is 'inclusive'?
What the hell does that even mean?
There is no investigative journalism anymore...the only thing that comes close are all Twitter and podcast folks. The NYT prints a story and the rest just pick it up with 'The NYT reports today that...' It's a global circle jerk.
Of course, the NYT is just taking dictation from the DNC and Pelosi's office.
If I owned the most influential newspaper in the world (these days only because they are based in New York), I would pay a $100,000 cash bonus for any journalist who investigates and reports a story that leads to the prosecution and conviction of any elected official, from POTUS all the way down to dog catcher.
Reddit.com in various subreddits such as LifeProTips, has a repetitive joke in comments, that the real useful info, the real tips, the real sources for neat stuff, is always in the comments. The basis for the joke is that out of the entire world of readers of an original post, there is probably a commenter who has more experience or is wiser than the author of the post. This should be true of NY Times readers as well, as journalists write stories, often-predetermined narratives using some of the facts found in reality, while commenters can provide more informed context to the journalist's screed based on their experience or expertise in that same reality the journalist distorts with a narrative.
Joe Rogan takes horse pills. Joe Rogan was prescribed Ivermectin, and it seems to have helped him.
One is a narrative. The other is a comment by none other than Joe himself. Choose your reality, or narrative, and enjoy. Only one choice will avoid cognitive dissonance.
It would be a good thing if the commentators and the paper itself were in some kind of intellectual tension with each other, but in the case of WaPo and the NYTimes, that isn't the case, and hasn't been the case during the entire internet commentary era.
What does that mean in this context?
Pandering to the "right" groups.
They should invite Bari Weiss
I just started listening to "Honestly". I have about another month's worth until I catch up. It is excellent. The NYT really lost a valuable asset when they lost her.
The comments confirm that the Times is preaching to the choir - an uncritical choir at that. They contribute to the paper’s collective lack of self awareness.
The NYT commenters are against freedom of speech.
How does that make the NYT "better"?
hombre: "The comments confirm that the Times is preaching to the choir - an uncritical choir at that. They contribute to the paper’s collective lack of self awareness."
Correct. Interestingly, the NYT remains the primary (dis)information organ for all LLR's/NeverTrumpers.
The Times also makes a practice of cutting off further comments. This happens regularly when the subject is race, immigration, homosexuality and the initial comments are negative on the way the story is written, e.g., the production of the Shakespeare play had an intentionally all black cast, the review was, of course, very positive on this. Some of the comments noted this and said, in substance, that an all white cast would be racist, so the all black cast raised problems. I could not comment, since comments were stopped at 27. If you use this post, you may use my name.
I read the on-line version of Seattle's progressive rag, The Stranger. I go straight to the comments section. You'd be surprised at the pushback from more moderate thinking people. In this case, the comments section gives me hope. Only read the actual article IF there is interesting push back in the comments section.
"1000 minds will always be better than one."
Seig Hiel!
If the comments section is leading to a better NYTimes, then the NYTimes should be paying the commenters.
Post a Comment