Q&A with Bill Keller, Exec. Editor of New York Times
nytimes.com
Excerpt below was part of a response to readers' questions on the "demise" of print...
First, there is a diminishing supply of quality journalism, and a growing demand. By quality journalism I mean the kind that involves experienced reporters going places, bearing witness, digging into records, developing sources, checking and double-checking, backed by editors who try to enforce high standards. I mean journalism that, however imperfect, labors hard to be trustworthy, to supply you with the information you need to be an engaged citizen. The supply of this kind of journalism is declining because it is hard, expensive, sometimes dangerous work. The traditional practitioners of this craft — mainly newspapers — have been downsizing or declaring bankruptcy. The wonderful florescence of communication ignited by the Internet contains countless voices riffing on the journalism of others but not so many that do serious reporting of their own. Hence the dwindling supply. The best evidence of the soaring demand is the phenomenal traffic to the Web sites that do dependable news reporting — nearly 20 million unique monthly visitors to the site you are currently reading, and that number excludes the burgeoning international audience. The law of supply and demand suggests that the market will find a way to make the demand pay for the supply. ... READ FULL STORY
People Depend on Newspapers...
Posts
17 comments
"journalism that, however imperfect, labors hard to be (trustworthy), to supply you with the information you need to be an engaged citizen"
The real reason why dinosaurs like the times continue to lose readership. Trustworthy? Really?
I would suspect the traffic to the online site is nothing more than supplied links from other sources like Drudge or RCP...People like myself have lost faith in the papers (and I miss it) They press an obvious agenda and rely on the stupidity of the readership to buffet them.....
The NYT is one of the reasons newpapers will not survive. I can fact check their articles in two seconds and see how inaccurate they are. I've stopped reading most articles with their bylines. Sad, a paper my grandfather proudly retired from and his grandson wouldn't pick it up for free.
It is amazing that the most bias source of information is talking about "trustworthy" journalism. Especially after the 2008 election and the slobbering love fest fro Obama (and I support Obama and I noticed it).
Get off the B.S. stereotype of "an Obama slobbering love fest." After eight years of the nightmare of Bush, Obama in his personality and idealism represented optimism and a ray of sunshine. If the newspapers responded to this, it says more about the man than the newspapers. I suppose if the newspapers did a positive story about Mother Theresa or Gandhi, or the philanthropist who donated his life savings to the local library they would be guilty of displaying slobbering love and bias.
Nice try Anon. The Times suffers for many reasons, but a general distrust of it's product is widespread and debilitating. Barack Obama has received tax free in-kind contributions from a majority of the media - whether that's because of the historic nature of his candidacy or because of his liberalism, he hasn't been vetted yet if the standard is any other Republican. But that's OK.
My advice is that the New York Times join MSNBC in announcing its political allegiance and become the Huffington of print. They'll garner a smaller but more loyal readership and might even be able to sleep at night knowing they aren't abusing the professionalism that once was the standard in the industry.
We need journalists - it's one of the joys of my life to read about the world around me. Nobody should wish the Times extinction - just fantasize about it and be thankful that today we can get the rest of the story from numerable media outlets...
Almost all newspaper print or websites carry only stories that are easy to write and don't take a lot of thought by the reporter. When Congress passes the budget, it always reported as a single figure; without any analysis or breakdown because that would take work. Non-US news is almost always "5 people killed in Indian Bus Crash" type news; again because this avoids the writer from having to do any work. US news is almost always sports, or crime, or entertainers; again because those stories don't require work to write.
Raoul's First Rule of Journalism == Bias = layoffs and in many cases closures (100 newspapers close down last year)
Liberals are not for the most part a newspapers customers or their source of ads.
Conservatives don't have time to sift through your opinion of the news... just the basics Who What Where How... your opinions are not wanted or needed... and bloviating is a no no
Face it... newspapers have become like the know-it-all at a party who doesn't get invited back.
And, dump the infotainment sections too... celebrities are idiots...
The extreme left wing bias of the media has caused its demise. America is basically a center right country, not a far left socialist state (at least not quite yet).
Look in the mirror. Read your Constitution and your history. Socialism is a failed philosophy. The slobbering support of a candidate and failure to investigate his flaws because of the color of his skin is reprehensible. You all are finished. I seriously doubt if the so-called main stream media will ever regain its credibility. I say Good Riddance to bad rubbish!
Newspapers will continue a slow death due to their reliance on a small handful of news source such as the AP and Reuters. Ideology is also a huge problem. Even my liberal friends who supported Hillary finally understand what a biased unfair press can do. Just today AP is reporting the Obama FEMA is getting high grades for ice storm where 50 people have died. Imagine if George Bush was hosting a SuperBowl Party in the 75 degree White House while Americans froze to death?
newspapers could start publishing online tomorrow, and there are plenty of ways to monetize the content -- even without Google. here's one: www.brandclik.com
Look, I feel for a lot of the people that work for newspapers, but c'mon guys, this is a self-inflicted wound. If newspapers had told the truth for the past two decades, people might believe in a project like this. But the simple fact is that many newspapers are so deep in their liberal bias that they don't deserve to survive. I know one conservative editor at a well known paper who, for the past 6 years, isn't acknowledge in the hallway just because of his political and religious beliefs. That kind of attitude runs all over the pages of your papers.
You are suffering the exact fate you deserve.
Many of these responses illustrate one very important reason we need a free press with professional journalists. Blogs and reader comments can quickly evolve into the equivalent of a food fight with little, or no, intellectual value. If newspapers die, where will the actual news come from? It won't come from TV and it certainly won't be user-generated.
Reporters fight a battle with editors who give in to the thinking that readers have only a 20 second attention span per story. "Only write 12 inches of copy. Readers don't read any farther ... write tighter, shorter and more stories." Editors need to give readers credit for wanting to be informed and educated. How much information can a reporter provide in only 12 inches?
Commenters have hit it on the head ... not bias but lack of effort. That's what's killing newspapers: Hardworking journalists undercut by the staffing decisions of a debt-laden management structure that insists on its 30% profit margins and cushy no-work jobs for execs.
I can remember when the NYT informed the world that "Castro is not a Communist" and thus assisted his rebellion in Cuba.
Post a Comment