|
|
October 4, 2005
News Comes in Code: Judy Miller's Return to the TimesJust one man's opinion, but now is a good time to say it: The New York Times is not any longer--in my mind--the greatest newspaper in the land. Nor is it the base line for the public narrative that it once was. Some time in the last year or so I moved the Washington Post into that position...… The Post, I believe, is our great national newspaper now; the Times is number two, with the Wall Street Journal close behind. Still a strong fleet. With a new ship in the lead perhaps it will sail to unexpected places. It was a long time in the making, this change in my half-conscious rankings of the great players in news. The Web has a lot to do with it, for the Post has been bolder, more willing to experiment online, less hung up. (Plus it hired this guy, a key move.) TimesSelect has something to do with it, too, for the reasons I explored in an earlier post. The breakdown in controls in reporting Weapons of Mass Destruction is, of course a factor— along with earlier episodes: Jayson Blair, Wen Ho Lee. There’s Paul Krugman’s correction trauma. It’s an accumulation of things; the Post is just more agile, better able to adjust to a changing world, and to the exploding marketplace in news and views. The switch happened a while ago, but I only realized it last night, as I was about to read Katharine Seelye’s account of Judith Miller’s return to the newsroom of the New York Times (Oct. 4). When I clicked on the story about 1:00 am I thought to myself… They’re not up to it. And while it may seem strange to some PressThink readers, I had never really felt that way before in reading a news story in the New York Times. On plenty of occasions since I began reading the paper (in college) I would say to myself after finishing a Times article, “nah, I don’t trust it.” Often I have waved an imaginary hand at what I had just read, as if to say: get out of here with that! There were columnists whose way of arriving at opinions I didn’t trust, and periods when I lost trust in the editorial pages entirely. But I held to my assumption as a news reader (and paying subscriber) that the New York Times would always try to tell me what it knew when it covered a story, and it would always try to cover the stories it knew were news. Fairness, you know, is a two-way medium. If I am not fair in my expectations, I will never find the Times fair as a news provider. As a critic I have found it more effective to hold the Times to the elevated (and self-conscious) public interest standard it sets for itself, which does in the end mean buying into “the newspaper of record” mythology, so as to point out where the newspaper and its record fall short. Clicking on to Seelye’s article last night, I realized that I didn’t expect the Times to try to tell me what it knew. I expected what I said Sunday: it’s Judy Miller’s New York Times. She deals with it as she pleases. On Sunday, Oct. 3, the Times had not tried to tell us what it knew, prompting Howard Kurtz of the Post to say: “I was hoping I would wake up this morning and see in my ‘New York Times’ [a] 5,000-word piece by Judith Miller telling us everything that was involved. She has no more legal liability here. Matt Cooper did it.” And Bill Keller could have ordered “it.” But Judy does as she pleases. I like how Kurtz said he was “hoping.” There is something very basic to Times journalism about this kind of hope, which I shared with Kurtz that day. “They’re the New York Times,” we probably thought to ourselves. They’re going to tell us what they know— now that they can tell us. After all, we have been waiting while Miller’s ordeal wound down. “No piece in the paper today,” said Kurtz on “Reliable Sources.” He was surprised, and seemed a little sad too. The day before he had reported in Media Notes on frustration among Miller’s colleagues at the Times: “People are angry,” one staffer said. “Was this a charade on her part for martyrdom, or a real principle? She wanted to resurrect herself from the WMD thing,” the staffer said, a reference to Miller stories about Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction that turned out to be wrong. Actually, I don’t buy it that she wants to “make-up for WMD failures,” and rehabilitate herself. The key to understanding Miller is to realize: she doesn’t think she failed one bit in her reporting before the Iraq war. (I explain here and here, if you’re really interested. Okay, one more.) So on Sunday, day of reflection, no one in the Times was reflecting on Miller, though according to the editorial page history had been made that week. “No newspaper reporter has ever spent so much time in custody to defend the right to protect confidential sources.” Sounds Week-in-Reviewish to me. On Monday (normally a big day for media coverage in the Times) more nothing. And in Tuesday’s “Miller returns” story very little beyond the official narrative, summarized quite well by the American Prospect’s Greg Sargent: “that Miller is a Gandhi-like figure driven solely by principle and unswayed by the worldly discomforts of prison, and that the Times is her steadfast defender.” And I don’t think its Katharine Seelye’s fault; almost any Times-person writing that article would have stuck to the known script. That’s the only safe thing to do. You get the message from the photo too: hero’s welcome. So limited and empty and “stiff” is the official story about Judy Miller that some are reminded of the old Soviet style in public communication. News comes in code, and mostly the silences speak. Steve Lovelady of CJR Daily said so: Our colleague Mike Hoyt has noted, reading the Times about the Times lately is a lot like reading Pravda about the Kremlin 20 years ago: You better bring to the task a microscope, a magic marker and an ability to read not just between the lines but between the words. For example: The only quotes in Seelye’s piece are from Judy Miller, returning home, and Bill Keller, welcoming her back. There’s your official narrative at work. The staff does not speak. Incredulous professional peers are silent. There is no debate out there worth bringing into the account. No book deal the Times can find out about, although Miller gets to say she’s “unsure” about doing a book about her ordeal. Pulling back a bit from that story, we’re supposed to believe, I guess—no one’s told me—that Maureen Dowd (who appears on Wednesdays and Saturdays) doesn’t see any column-writing promise in the “grandstanding” charge, or the “one-third of a martini in a gorgeous glass, along with a fruit tray,” brought to Miller by Times Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr., or the “meal I want my husband to prepare,” or the big battle of wits—and totally conflicting stories—between Lewis Libby’s lawyer Joseph Tate and the First Amendment sage Floyd Abrams. No column material there, right? (On Wednesday, Oct. 5, she wrote about women in the Bush White House.) With many unanswered questions, some of which only the Times can address, being itself a huge actor in the drama, the newspaper has gone into editorial default, as if a plea of nolo contendere had been entered at Supreme News Court in the matter of Judy Miller, prosecutor Fitzgerald and the sputtering New York Times. Notice that in her first few days out of jail Miller could not manage to: 1.) compose a statement for the Times that reveals anything, 2.) answer a single question from reporters that reveals anything, 3.) say a thing about her grand jury testimony that reveals anything, although it is legal to do so and Matt Cooper of Time magazine did, or 4.) admit that Lewis Libby was her source, even though letters from Libby to Miller, and from her lawyer to his lawyer were posted for all to see by the New York Times! (She did it admit it Monday, four days after the whole world knew. This is journalism?) From what I understand of the code that binds reporters, if you have big news because it happens you are a participant in the news, then you phone the desk because you think of your colleagues and they deserve the scoop. Of course you answer questions from the press when it’s time for that because you’re a source and they can’t write their stories without you. You behave with an awareness that you’re usually in their position, trying to squeeze information out of harried people, who sometimes just want to go home and have a quiet meal. You remain a journalist, even though you have to operate as a source, and defend your interests. Judy Miller has behaved like she understood not one word of this. Miller is a longtime friend of the publisher, Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. They socialize. It’s not a scandal, but it is a fact. Sulzberger has stood behind her in a show of support that anyone watching can see is personal, and strongly-felt. She has the full support of Executive Editor Bill Keller, who has said (more or less) she’s a First Amendment hero— not a martyr, Keller would say, but a hero in the sense of acting with exemplary courage and personal conviction in civil disobedience to the law. Colliding ominously with these two facts are several others. The weight of professional opinion—once solidly behind Judy Miller, for a long time split 60/40 for her—is now decisively against. (I would think reader opinion is similarly thumbs down.) Most journalists seem baffled by her explanations, and dubious about the waiver that wasn’t, then was. They do not see her cause as necessarily just. Within the Times, I don’t know what the feelings are, but it isn’t possible that people there are insulated from the above facts. They know what their peers in the press think. The Washington bureau, in my opinion, has been humiliated by the plea of nolo contendere. And I doubt that I am the only one who sees it that way. I don’t expect the editorial default to last. It’s possible that once the news coverage, column-writing and self-examination starts to flow (next week? the week after that?) the Times will recover its journalistic senses, and get back some of the reputation points that are expiring because it’s become Judy Miller’s Times. The official story now is wait for the official story, the big piece of explanatory journalism Bill Keller has said will happen. “A full account of Ms. Miller’s case,” in Seelye’s words. “I know that you and our readers still have a lot of questions about how this drama unfolded,” he told the staff members. He said the paper had been wary of revealing too much about the case for fear of compounding Ms. Miller’s legal problems, but added, “Now that she’s free, we intend to answer those questions to the best of our ability in a thoroughly reported piece in the pages of The New York Times, and soon. We owe it to our readers, and we owe it to you, our staff.” “In an interview after her appearance, Ms. Miller said she would cooperate with the newspaper’s reporters,” Seelye says. That would be a switch, huh? “In the interview, she declined to reveal what she had told the grand jury.” Oh, no switch. Says Lovelady: “So much for cooperation.” You see at Judy Miller’s New York Times, Judy decides when she cooperates. There is a code operating here but I assure you it is not the one shared among most reporters. (As I type this I learn that she will be on CNN with Lou Dobbs tonight. Update: Transcript.) After watching the short video of Miller speaking in the newsroom, and reading the coverage again, it’s clear what her story is for the weeks ahead: Judy Miller won significant victories for all journalists with her decision to go to jail for her principles. Therefore she made the right decision, and so did Sulzberger and Keller by backing her. The first victory she claims is: “the blanket waiver is dead.” Meaning no one in the press will believe it any more and testify when a source gives a blanket waiver to all journalists. Miller showed what a sham it was, forcing Libby to give her a personal waiver, over the phone, and demonstrate that he really, really meant it. The second victory is that, though she was forced to submit her notes, she and the Times got to redact the notes to remove all references to other cases, other sources, rather than have a third party—neither the prosecutor nor the journalist—do the redacting. That will somehow become a precedent, she suggests. She is very proud of these victories. “I got things that no other journalist has ever gotten out of a process like this.” Her reference point is not what the press may have won or lost from the state, but what Miller got compared to other journalists who tried it. There’s your First Amendment hero. Miller claims that Fitzgerald was not willing to limit her testimony to one source and one story, as he did for others, and Lewis Libby did not give her a personal waiver, as he did for others, so she could not negotiate a way out, as did others. But then the pressure of her public stand forced Fitzgerald to relent and Libby to relent via negotiations. And so, her victories won, she ended her jail stay and testified. That’s Judy’s story and she will stick to it. Whether the Times can free itself, remember its loyalty to readers, and tell the larger story that incorporates and corrects hers is… totally unclear. Frankly, the organization may not be up to it. But this doesn’t matter to what I said at the start. There’s a new flagship paper, and just as the Times needed the Post to steam alongside and challenge it, the Post will need a strong New York Times to remain true. So I hope it goes back to being the New York Times one day soon. After Matter: Notes, reactions & links… I was a guest on CNN’s “Reliable Sources” Sunday (Oct. 9) to talk about the Judith Miller mess with host Howard Kurtz, plus Glenn Reynolds and Michael Isikoff of Newsweek. Transcript is here. Excerpts: JAY ROSEN: I think “The New York Times” has lost the capacity to tell the truth about itself in this story. It’s completely overidentified itself and the majesty of the institution with Judy Miller and what its own people describe as her personal decision making… It isn’t the First Amendment drama that they think it is. It’s a much more complicated, darker and ultimately dubious tale. Roll tape! Take Notes! First, the Times reports Oct. 7 that Judy Miller may have to talk to Fitzgerald again: Bill Keller, the executive editor of The Times, said Ms. Miller had been cautioned by her lawyers not to discuss the substance of her grand jury testimony until Mr. Fitzgerald finished questioning her. The New York Observer reports—this is the same day—that “lawyers for Miller have turned over an additional, previously unreported batch of notes on the New York Times reporter’s conversations with I. Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby to prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald.” These would be notes from a conversation she had about Joseph Wilson from before Wilson’s op-ed appeared. Why? We get no info on that: The presence of the undisclosed set of notes comes as the Times is seeking to quell internal and external criticism over a lack of transparency in the Miller case. In today’s Times, executive editor Bill Keller said Miller’s potential return trip to meet with Fitzgerald could further delay the Times’ plans to publish an account of the Miller saga. Deputy managing editor Jonathan Landman, who has been tapped to edit the report, declined to discuss the state of the paper’s Miller reporting. Which adds up to: Editor & Publisher, Oct. 8: ‘N.Y. Times’ Scooped Again, This Time on Miller’s Notes. Indeed. But where did Miller’s notes come from? The New York Times knows, but it’s Michael Isikoff of Newsweek who tells: “a notebook was discovered in the paper’s Washington bureau, reflecting a late June 2003 conversation with Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, Lewis (Scooter) Libby, about Wilson and his trip to Africa, says one of the lawyers.” Discovered in the Washington bureau, where they’re none too thrilled with Judy Miller? Hmmmm. Now see Greg Mitchell’s The Case of the Missing Notebook. Mitchell picks up on a point I made in this post: Why have the Times’ seven hard-hitting weekday opinion columnists remained virtually silent, pro or con, on their colleague Judith Miller throughout this ordeal? Conflicted? Afraid to appear disloyal? Or discouraged from commenting? Well, Frank Rich was also on “Reliable Sources” Sunday. Kurtz could have asked him: “Frank, why haven’t you written a column on Miller’s release and the questions left hanging?” But he didn’t. Gloria Borger: “I want to say to Frank, we journalists who have been covering this story, we are all awaiting Judy Miller’s piece in The New York Times. We would like to read it, too.” And she gave him a look I would call imploring. For the sluether in you… PressThink has a tip. To begin to unravel the mystery of what may be going on with Judy Miller, what should be going on (but isn’t), and what started to go on, but got stopped… this story is the starting point. (Mentioned by several I have talked to in the last few days.) See the bland title: “Case of C.I.A. Officer’s Leaked Identity Takes New Turn.” And the date: July 28. Study it as you would a map. Ask every question you can. You have your assignment: go slueth. Wanna head start? The New York Observer team: Cool Hand Judy. Important. “Time for Miller to come clean” says Sydney Schanberg in the Village Voice: “She has to do it for the public she says she is responsible to, for her colleagues, and for the Times, whose reputation is also at stake here.” He’s a former Pulitzer-Prize winning reporter for the Times. This is a very interesting column, a gem in its way: Judith Miller and the myth of the ‘liberal media establishment: “We are a different breed, journalists. Sometimes for better. Sometimes for worse. But a different breed nonetheless. And one whose actions cannot be explained in the simplistic terms of liberal vs. conservative.” It’s by Cindi Ross Scoppe of The State in Columbia, SC. Peter Levine comments on this post: The implicit deal that the Times offers is this: We will cozy up to the power-brokers, but we will do it in your interests, so that we can keep you informed about their wheeling and dealing. When the Times becomes a power-broker itself, the deal comes into question. At that moment, the editors should understand that their whole justification is at stake, and they should rush to serve the public’s “right to know.” Failure to do so raises fundamental questions about the value of the New York Times that go far beyond any cases of misreporting or run-of-the-mill bias. Exactly. Far beyond. Michael Cader of Publishers Lunch, the widely-read industry newsletter, wrote a very smart post in comments. First he says Arianna Huffington distorted what she was told to produce her report of a book deal for Judy Miller with Simon & Schuster. Then he says that “in our little world” (publishing biz) “not only is the [Times] not the best newspaper in the country, it’s a second-rate paper, committing errors both of commission and omission on a regular basis.” The notion of the Times’ greatness is legacy more than something they earn today. It’s still a paper that employs some great reporters and produces some great work—but they would like to remain in a paradigm in which their very best work gives institutional authority (a free pass if you will) to everything they do, and I think that’s where we have all gotten smarter. He’s on to something there. It’s not that the Times isn’t great, sometimes— okay, a lot. It’s the assumption that great authority is bestowed “…because it’s the Times” that no longer operates. Read Cader. Arianna Huffington replies to Cader in comments: At a time when Team Miller was desperately trying to deflect criticism of her, and circling the wagons around the story that Miller is a journalistic martyr, the news that she was cashing in on her newfound notoriety was, to say the least, not part of the game plan. Is it any wonder that Miller, the Times, and Simon and Schuster would go into big-time damage control mode? At HP, Arianna rounds up recent links to other blog postings about Judy Miller. Mark Glaser in Online Journalism Review: Is Yahoo public enemy No. 1 for Big Media? “I think we’re missing the story if we keeping asking: Is this new player or that new player (bloggers, citizen journalists, Yahoo) going to replace the big news providers?” Rosen told me via e-mail. “I’m convinced that journalists love that question — will we be replaced? — because it’s actually more comforting than the alternative: Who’s in a position to realize the potential advantages of the Web, and bring new them forcefully into news and editorial? To me the answer, right now, is clear: Yahoo is in a better position. That’s not solved by starting some blogs.” It’s true: I told him that. Related post is my Some Bloggers Meet the Bosses From Big Media. Hey, PressThink made News.com’s Blog 100 list. Cool. Thanks. Over at Buzzmachine Jeff Jarvis reacts with some questions for me: “What Jay doesn’t explore yet — and I hope he does — is the question of what makes a great newspaper today. What is that definition? Has it changed? Should it?…What is the proper ambition for a newspaper today?” I’ll have to think about it, Jeff. “In my view, it’s a national tragedy.” Gene Lyons, a critic of the New York Times coverage of the Clintons in the 1990s and co-author, with Joe Conason, of The Hunting of the President: The Ten–Year Campaign to Destroy Bill and Hillary Clinton, says in comments. “I’ve really enjoyed your pieces on Judith Miller, and learned from them. Sadly, I find the NYT’s collective behavior quite in keeping with its institutional character.” Read the rest where he explains why. Also in comments, Andrew Tyndall of the Tyndall Report on how the unit of valuation is shifting to “the story,” not the newscast or newspaper. Jon Carrol of the San Francisco Chronicle says it doesn’t add up. “I am trying to construct an explanation that makes sense of the facts as we know them, and it seems clear that we do not know all the facts.” He concludes: And another thing: How did Judith Miller get to be the martyr in all this? It was, after all, Valerie Plame who got caught in the cross fire between a vindictive White House and an angry diplomat. Someone might spare a thought for her. And if you want journalistic martyrs — well, there are a whole bunch of them in Iraq and Afghanistan right now, risking their lives to tell the story of their wars. Those are the journalists I stand in awe of. Lisa Williams points to an intriguing post by Dave Winer about Martin Nisenholtz and Judith Miller from Oct., 2004. I’m not sure what to say about the Lou Dobbs interview with Judy Miller. A cynical term for it would be “love fest.” Dobbs: “All of us in this craft respect you immensely and are deeply grateful to you for so doing. It’s an immense sacrifice.” He expressed his anger at Fitzgerald, but did not ask Miller any challenging questions. She said she went to jail for the public’s right to know. I guess “fluff” is the word I would use. In comments, Geneva Overholser, who worked at the New York Times and was ombudsman at the Washington Post, disputes my re-ranking of the two. “This piece sounds like the thinking of a New Yorker who reads the Post mostly online.” Derek Rose, journalist and blogger, doesn’t agree with me about the Times and the Post. Again he doesn’t agree with me. This is what I love about blogging: the gentleness. Dean Esmay writes… Jay, please hear this in the gentlest possible voice when I say these words: they’ve been a ridiculously unreliable voice for a long time now. To “get back to being the New York Times,” they’ve got to go way, way, waay back before they can be considered a real news organization again… But if I find out about an important story, even if the New York Times has it first (which ain’t that often anymore), I automatically check the Washington Post or Reuters or UPI because I know there’s a good chance the New York Times’ report won’t be trustworthy. They haven’t been the paper of record for a long time Jay. Dean: Thanks for your post. Actually I didn’t exactly say they were… “the” newspaper of record, which I called a mythology. I said I found that newspaper-of-record stuff to be the best standard by which to interpret and criticize the Times. The best tool to communciate with. Christopher Fotos at PostWatch responds: Agreed that the Post is far ahead of the Times (and probably any other big mainstream paper) in its online production: washingtonpost.com has many online chats every day with reporters, editors, and guests; it links to bloggers in that partnership with Technorati; it’s trying different kinds of house blogs; it has developed online-only columnists that are developing their own distinct audiences (and washingtonpost.com is really a separate entity from the newspaper.) But, he says, “it has the same cultural and political biases as ever.” Patterico: “Jay Rosen says the Washington Post is a better paper than the New York Times. I’ve been saying that for ages.” Yes, well that just shows the importance of sticking to things, Patterico. One of the more disturbing parts of “Judy Miller’s New York Times” is that the newspaper earlier went through a trauma involving an out-of-control journalist, and the isolation of top management (Jayson Blair.) It made a major effort to learn those lessons. See PressThink, The Siegal Report, a Triumph of Self Reflection at the New York Times. So it’s not like this is all new… Finally, Bertrand Pecquerie at EditorsWeblog (an international site) comments on this post: “My conclusion: The New York Times must react very quickly to avoid any parallelism between how the newspaper managed the Blair scandal and how it deals with the Miller affair.”
Posted by Jay Rosen at October 4, 2005 6:59 PM
Comments
If the Times could devote columns and columns to a Jayson Blair post-mortem when the impact of his journalistic crimes was far less significant, it owes its readers big time for Miller. Sorry Jay, but the Washington Post is also Number Two -- in every sense of the term. That the New York Times barely passes muster as fish-wrap has been known for some time. The Post continues to coast on the alleged glory days of Watergate -- even while Woodward is now barely idistinguishable from Steno Sue as a BushCo. water-carrier. But that's not the worst part. The worst part is when the Post ran the easily proveable LIE that the governor of Louisiana didn't declare a disaster when Katrina struck. Why did it publish this LIE? Because itwas given to them by a White House "source." And having been burned by this 'source" will the Post name him? Certainly not. "Sources" are to be protectedbecause newspapers can't function without them, we're ever-so-piously infomred. That means the govenment can LIE with impunity and count on the press to report said LIES as truth -- without any consequence whatsoever. Oh yes there are all those readers who'll complain, but as Barbara Bush says, we're just the "little people." Nothing worth disturbing her "beautiful mind" over. Posted by: David Ehrenstein at October 4, 2005 9:47 PM | Permalink Sail on, O ship of stasis! Posted by: ogden at October 4, 2005 10:47 PM | Permalink Not to stray too far from your major theme but as Tom Maguire as ably pointed out, Judy Miller is not alone in her silence on this matter. At least from the journalistic side of the ledger. Matthew Cooper hasn't written or said much as to what Libby or Rove told him. Neither has Tim Russert. Or Walter Pincus. Or, most obvious, Bob Novak. Or a dozen or so other reporters who reportedly either testified to the grand jury or were again reportedly discussing Plame's identity. The Times may indeed be the pennant winners when it comes to a curious silence on la affair Plame. But their winning margin is just a few games. SMG Posted by: SteveMG at October 4, 2005 10:55 PM | Permalink As ususal, Jay swithces on the light when he writes of the N.Y Times' seeming silence given its, and other journalists', participation in the Miller/Libby Plame-leak blame game (which means they happen to be making the news, at least in part): "...the Times...being itself a huge actor in the drama..." Do you suppose this occurs more often than we're generally aware - - our lack of awareness being a consequence of this journalistic code of silence when certain journalists and their editors find (or make) themselves players behind the news? I think it's possible... Posted by: Trained Auditor at October 4, 2005 11:13 PM | Permalink I've put off reading on this topic. It's depressing. By virtue of its role in holding others accountable, a news staff -- as a group -- must hold itself to a higher standard. If it asks for openness and candor in others, it should demonstrate that credo when it becomes the news. Pretty basic stuff. Until money and power and ego and status and lawyers get involved. Which they always do. Posted by: Daniel Conover at October 4, 2005 11:22 PM | Permalink You got it right, SMG. Judith Miller is playing the Diane Wiest role in Edward Scissorhands - standing up for a principle she doesn't quite comprehend - her narcissism and social position rendering her incapable of understanding, even as she risks her own reputation - futilely attempting the makeover of a Pricean Press while her newsroom neighbors gather round with pitchforks and shotguns... Posted by: ogden at October 4, 2005 11:23 PM | Permalink Kinda starts looking familiar -- the King's mistress starting to dabble in running the country, and he has to indulge her or answer questions from the Queen's family. Mr. Sulzberger isn't actually unique, but it is sort of a comedown for a paper that has "All the news that's fit to print" on its masthead. Long ago Mad Magazine paraphrased that as "All the news that fits, we print." That's about it, and it doesn't mean just what can be squeezed in between the brassiere ads. BTW Mr. Ehrenstein -- have you read Gov. Blanco's declaration of emergency? I have, and a more thoroughly Louisianan Government document is hard to imagine. It cut&pastes the necessary phraseology from paragraph 5170 of the Stafford Act to trigger the goodie-deliveries, asks for grants in aid under a long list of other provisions, and, of the nine possibilities under para. 5170b ranging from "provision of temporary facilities" to "reduction of immediate threats to life, property, and public health and safety", asks for one thing: assistance with debris removal afterward. It's a highfalutin' language version of what the bouncer at a Canal Street club would say when you barfed on the floor: give us lots of money, and clean up the damn mess, willya? Maybe the guys at the Post read it, and that's why they decided to LIE? Curb your enthusiasm, sir. I've been yelled at for less, and deserved it. Regards, Posted by: Ric Locke at October 5, 2005 12:00 AM | Permalink Miller is running a feature article this Sunday articulating everything that happened. Posted by: Jake at October 5, 2005 1:18 AM | Permalink The NY Times is #2 alright, but not in the way you indicate. If you think the NY Times is anywhere near the second best paper in the land, read this eye-opening book: "Journalistic Fraud: How The New York Times Distorts the News and Why It Can No Longer Be Trusted" The book runs $1 used. The NY Times is nothing but agenda-driven partisan hackery (see: front page Al Qaqaa story days before the 2004 election, "Abu Ghraib" front page above the fold for 41 days straight, etc, etc). Posted by: Observer at October 5, 2005 1:24 AM | Permalink "The NY Times is nothing but agenda-driven partisan hackery" Agreed - it is Pravda. If you're reading the NYTs, you're posioning your mind with misinformation that will be a handicap when debating conservatives. And I agree with Jay: I'm biased right-wing, but I look to Wapo these days when I want hear opposing POVs made in good faith. They've made an obvious effort to be less partisan. Posted by: Fen at October 5, 2005 2:22 AM | Permalink Sure Judy, take your time about it--Sunday will do. We'll just sit here and wait, wondering just how you've spent 85 days alone and didn't have the story on Keller's desk within 15 minutes of being sprung. Posted by: Bob Holmgren at October 5, 2005 2:23 AM | Permalink I'd agree that the Times is #2, but the Post isn't #1, the Journal is. The Post might be better than the Times for national politics but hoo boy, it sure isn't for business, local news, or the arts. The Post is pretty much your average American newspaper on those things. Posted by: AF at October 5, 2005 2:43 AM | Permalink see: front page Al Qaqaa story days before the 2004 election, "Abu Ghraib" front page above the fold for 41 days straight, etc, Also note recent NYT's Sins of Ommission: no reporting on AirAmerica scandal, no reporting on native Sen Schumer's staff stealing credit info on Steele. I'm reminded of my Euro friends who remained ignorant of UN Oil for Food scam, and Canadians flocking to Captain's Quarters (?) to learn about the Left's fundraising scandal. Posted by: Fen at October 5, 2005 3:08 AM | Permalink WaPo better than NYT is a given, but damning with faint praise. Posted by: jethrobodine at October 5, 2005 6:46 AM | Permalink I'm with Esmay and also wish to say it with respect to Jay--I stopped relying on the NYT a very long time ago. I remember telling friends years ago that I read it mainly to see what Democrats and liberals were thinking. It's still pretty good for that. As for the Washington Post--I can't say everything I'd like right now, not even on my own blog, PostWatch, because I'm on the road, but long story short: Agreed that the Post is far ahead of the Times (and probably any other big mainstream paper) in its online production: washingtonpost.com has many online chats every day with reporters, editors, and guests; it links to bloggers in that partnership with Technorati; it's trying different kinds of house blogs; it has developed online-only columnists that are developing their own distinct audiences (and washingtonpost.com is really a separate entity from the newspaper) etc., etc. But (dismal bias-discussion alert) it has the same cultural and political biases as ever, so its reporting is as reliable as ever and merits some Pravda-like interpretation of its own. I don't have the link, but in one of Howard Kurtz's recent columns on internal debates(as many of you know),a reporter expressed dismay at the liberal "our kind" monoculture, amazed for example at open cheering when watching Democrats win on some election night. Executive Editor Leonard Downie confirmed the problem by denying it; he was quoted by Kurtz as saying the complaint shows there are diverse voices at the Post. Another example would be the online columnists I referred to. The Nation alum Jefferson Morley, Terry Neal, Dan Froomkin.... none can be described as conservative; some can fairly be described as liberal-to-progressive. That's the universe of the Post, and it creates the same patterns of error at washingtonpost.com as it does in the newspaper. Posted by: Christopher Fotos at October 5, 2005 6:46 AM | Permalink We would insist that the reason Miller went to jail has to do with her not wanting to testify about things other than the Plame affair. Note her and her attorney's comments about striking a deal with Fitzgerald limiting her testimony to only one subject. Posted by: Bill Zeller at October 5, 2005 7:04 AM | Permalink Bill, There is a lot of smoke around the story, and a lot of it is being blown. I think the truth is that the story being told isn't the real story. I don't think this was ever about Libby and whether the waivers were sufficiently personal. This was about to what extent the prosecutor was willing to limit his questioning. Judy, Saint or not, was always willing to 'give up' Libby. The real question is what is it she was willing to go to jail to avoid being questioned about. And the real question isn't what changed from Miller's perspective to get to leave jail now, but what changed in Fitzgerald's mind that he struck a deal to very narrowly limit the questioning now, when he wouldn't do so before. There was something else he wanted to question her about...and he is now willing to not question her about. SPECULATION ALERT I see several possibilities. One is that Miller had other conversations with other people relevant to Plame. Keep in mind Miller was the recipient of a lot of (illegal) leaks about WMD from the CIA in the run up to the war. Miller had a confidential source, that leaked other classified information who more than likely worked with pretty closely with Plame in WMDs. There is a strong possibility that Miller was either the one who linked Joe Wilson to Plame, or at least the conduit of that information onto the DC party circuit/journalist gossip network. The conversation with Libby isn't the interesting conversation to focus on from a getting to the bottom of the Plame situation. I would love to hear her answer under oath how she first came to know Wilson and Plame were married. I bet Fitzgerald would too. But now that question will never be asked or answered. Second, Fizgerald has a history with Miller. She twiced tipped off Terrorist Front Organizations/Islamic Charities that Fitzgerald was investigating that he had been issued a warrant before the warrants could be served. (Interestingly enough, this is also an illegal leak of secret Grand Jury testimony). Those 'charities' had the opportunity to sanitize anything that needed sanitizing before Fitzgerald could execute the warrant. I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on a blog, and I don't pretend to fully understand the limitations of a grand jury empanelled for one purpose to consider another case. Suffice it to say, I don't think Fitzgerald would be unhappy to see Miller sitting in prison for her actions in those situations. She blew an investigation with national security implications, twice, for the petty reason of getting a comment on the warrant that was about to be served on them. Posted by: blanknoone at October 5, 2005 7:44 AM | Permalink When I want news, with value-added reporting, I turn to the Washington Post or the Journal. When I want to see a bunch of knee-jerk, hidebound pseudointellectuals engaging in a self-congratulatory soap opera of dysfunction, - and when I want to see book reviewers wring the last driplets of utility from the word "limn," - I look to the New York Times, Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at October 5, 2005 9:18 AM | Permalink I wouldn't completely agree with you, Jay. For instance, this morning the Post finally ran a story looking at the distorted reporting on crime at the Superdome and convention center in New Orleans -- and it ran inside, what a week? 2 weeks? after other newspapers, including the Times, reported on it.
Posted by: lou at October 5, 2005 9:26 AM | Permalink My favorite newspaper of record and shame - the New York Times. What can we do without it? 1. 2. 3. Posted by: David at October 5, 2005 9:46 AM | Permalink I should say I'm exaggerating. Slightly. ;-) Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at October 5, 2005 10:24 AM | Permalink When you read NYT, you can feel that it wants to slant the news coverage to the tune of its editorial page direction. When you read WaPost, it seems to hum to more of a "fair and balanced" tone. NYT has lost its objectivity a long time ago, and hence it has resulted in issuing major corrections all the time. Posted by: Cableguy at October 5, 2005 10:42 AM | Permalink David Ehrenstein is only half right about Blanco declaring a State of Emergency about Katrina. The NYT got it wrong that no emergency was declared at all, but still missed the point that neither the Governor not the Legislature of Louisiana declared that the state government could not meet the crisis--the Feds have never been and still are not "in charge", they have no statutory recourse if state and local officials act in a manner contrary to FEMA's direction, or if they fail to apprise FEMA of relevant information--in the first crucial days, FEMA was a blind suggestor, not a "management" agency in LA, and that's how the LA govt. wants it. Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp Posted by: Tom Perkins at October 5, 2005 10:43 AM | Permalink What is left of the house that Jayson Blair burned down is quickly being destroyed by Judy Miller, wielding the WMD she didn't find in Iraq, making way for a new faux Times, remade in her image. I have a friend who works there. I'd call him, but I'm afraid the conversation would turn into something off a suicide hotline. You toil for your whole career to reach to top of the mountain, only to find it's the wrong mountain. If I were there, I'd be tempted to jump. Posted by: Kirk Caraway at October 5, 2005 10:52 AM | Permalink Beg pardon, that was the Post, nevertheless, neither the NYT nor the Post have shown how very badly the LA govt wants to continue "owning" their disastrous emergency response, and I have seen no commentary from any MSM source, much less the Post or NYT, about how it is innapropriate for the WH to be basing it's call for a major change to the Posse Comitatus laws on the inadequacy of state and local governments. Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp Posted by: Tom Perkins at October 5, 2005 11:43 AM | Permalink How can the Washington Post Be Considered the best National paper when you cant even find a copy on the West Coast? Doesnt being a National paper mean you need to be accesible to everybody? (and not just on the Internet?) Posted by: Anonymous at October 5, 2005 11:47 AM | Permalink It is certainly true that while The New York Times was the standard when I studied journalism at NYU, today it is not something I would wipe my feet on. I do not read it, and will not. As to which are the better papers, there may well be some lack of exposure here. The best paper in the country is the Los Angeles Times, with WAPO and WSJ in the rear. And the sinlg must-read weekly is The Week. Posted by: dancooper59 at October 5, 2005 12:00 PM | Permalink The owners of the WaPo have made it very clear that they think it is a "local" paper, which *may* have a bit of interest to non-locals. Hence no one outside of the area being able to buy one. The best paper in the country is the Los Angeles Times Hahahaha, good one. You owe me a new keyboard, I spit out my drink laughing. Posted by: K at October 5, 2005 12:17 PM | Permalink Dear Jay, Your work is always engaging and thought-provoking. But this piece sounds like the thinking of a New Yorker who reads the Post mostly online. Witnessing the crowning of a new champion based overwhelmingly on the old champ's weaknesses makes one itch to recount one's gripes about the new guy. But I'll demur -- mostly -- since there's plenty to praise and decry in each. I will say this: The Post is indeed more agile and inventive online. But the new number one national newspaper? Hmmm. Geneva Posted by: Geneva Overholser at October 5, 2005 12:26 PM | Permalink I live in Washington and I totally disagree with your assessment of the Post as the number 1 newspaper. Posted by: Fran Murphy at October 5, 2005 1:02 PM | Permalink Fran, What is wrong with keeping suburban readers happy? If I was a newspaper I would keep anyone who would buy my paper happy. We may have a free press, but ink and bandwidth is not free. Jay, In the end, does this matter? The president is already ignoring the press. Many of the above readers already take the NYT with a grain of salt, if they get it at all. Others have been shut out by the pay site. If the NYT starts acting more like the National Enquirer will any one notice? Those whom have not already been turned off by the newspaper don't care and the others are happy and will accept the Times explanation.
Geneva Overholser hit the nail on the head when she writes: "The Post is indeed more agile and inventive online. But..." No buts about it lady, if you want to be a "national" paper, you have to be "agile and inventive." So what if WaPo, LATimes, WSJ, don't have home delivery? Who could afford all that anyway? What I've found is that the best information is local. Concerning Katrina, the best coverage was at nola.com and Times-Picayune---they blew NYTimes, WaPo out of the water (maybe literally) because they knew the local scene, and the others were just parachuted in. The best information about the DeLay indictment is not at NYTimes (unless you value partisan hackery) or even WaPo (though they are better at understanding government and politics) but in the TX papers. You couldn't subscribe to all these local papers, even if you wanted to----this is why inventiveness online is so important---you'll get the best information from the local paper----no matter the locale. Posted by: kilgore trout at October 5, 2005 1:51 PM | Permalink I wish to put forth a seemingly ridiculous notion. Considering the current state of the major newpapers - the Post and the 2 Times (NY and LA) - I might nominate USA Today for number 1. The main reason being that they seem to be improving, the other 3 are going the other way.... Posted by: Allen Franklin at October 5, 2005 1:55 PM | Permalink This argument has been going on for decades. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at October 5, 2005 3:06 PM | Permalink Come to think of it, I don't know that it's truly possible to have a quality "national" newspaper. Too many barriers, too many compromises, too many crushing expectations. Does the same apply to the web? Posted by: Daniel Conover at October 5, 2005 3:24 PM | Permalink "what makes a great newspaper today. What is that definition? Has it changed? Should it?…What is the proper ambition for a newspaper today?” Jeff and Jay, meet Janet - Posted by: Anna Haynes at October 5, 2005 4:11 PM | Permalink Jay (or Steve), Do you think its actually possible for a newspaper or any news organization to "recuse" itself from covering a story? To say, "sorry, we're just too involved to cover this...go get your news elsewhere about this issue." I know this might sound ridiculous but I recall Slate.com saying something *like* that about the Microsoft Anti-trust case. Granted Slate isn't an all-purpose daily newspaper but more like a general-interest web magazine. Posted by: Catrina at October 5, 2005 4:31 PM | Permalink We liberal, small-town Democrats here in NW Wisconsin have all switched to having the POST as #1 on our "favorites" list, followed by the TIMES. This is in protest over the new fee that the TIMES charges for the right to read some of their big-name writers. There is no #3 upon which we agree. The WSJ's editorial attitude makes me want to puke whenever I look at it, so I hardly ever do. But because I value a certain diversity in my small resort town of Spooner, I pay for the library's subscription. I know there are readers who parse every line of every article in both papers to press their accusations and acolades, but after I listen to something like Fox News or read a piece by Cal Thomas, I can easily appreciate having both the TIMES and the POST online. They are sometimes wrong and sometimes biased, and, yes, they make their share of mistakes of fact and judgement. And, yes, some of the factual errors may not be errors, but propaganda and deliberate obfuscation. But we're not from the East Coast and what happens "out there" is as relevant to us (usually) as the last election in Afghanistan. As long as these papers get it reasonably accurate and fairly quickly, we're not going to look our gift horse in the mouth. After you have tried to eat a resturant meal with Limbaugh or Michael Savage blaring in the background, it is heaven to go home and look at both papers. Posted by: Jim Speck at October 5, 2005 4:55 PM | Permalink Tom and Jay you're completely -- deliberately -- missing the point about Louisiana. The White House floated a LIE that the Washington Post dutifully printed. When the LIE was pointed out, the Post printed a correction. When asked whether or not it would reveal who in the White House lied, the Post huffily refused to do so. The bottom line: The White House can float any lie it wants via the "unnamed sources" FRAUD and get away with it. Of course all you neo-fascists care about is dissing local government the better to draw attention away from massive BushCo. failures, but so be it. Posted by: David Ehrenstein at October 5, 2005 4:57 PM | Permalink Catrina -- Posted by: Steve Lovelady at October 5, 2005 5:05 PM | Permalink That was a low moment for the Post. What I wrote about it was: "sounds like the behavior of a palace press." Well the are the palace press -- and have been for some time. Never forget Woodward and Bernstein weren't -- and aren't -- friends. It was an arranged marriage to "balance" a story that thanks to some good solid reporting (in other words all the stuff that made Watergate imporant -- which is to say NOT "Deep Throat") it all got quite "out of hand." Lucky us. Dubbya isn't likely to self-destruct the way Nixon did, because he has no core beliefs -- even of the most specious Nixonian kind -- whatsoever. Posted by: David Ehrenstein at October 5, 2005 5:34 PM | Permalink You make many excellent points, Jay. A few additional glimpses through my very specific lens on the world: book publishing, and electronic information. The only point in Miller and the NYT's defense is that you and the media at large may have been far too quick to accept Ariana Huffington's third-party account of a book deal (updated today to a sort-of second-and-a-half party account). Particularly since one of the principals involved, Simon & Schuster president Carolyn Reidy, told my publication today, among other things: "What I said (but she didn't put on her site) was that there was no proposal, no discussions about a book, no discussion about money, no p&l created, no offer made, no signed deal. I was trying to be as definitive as possible in telling her her information was 100% wrong (which I also said)." Huffington completely truncated Reidy's quote, context and meaning to make it look like she was parsing words instead of providing a blanket denial. By any standard at NYU or any real journalism, Huffington's sourcing stinks, and she's blatantly manipulated her quotes and reporting to serve her story and keep the traffic coming in. Where the NYT erred--and continues to err--is in not even getting a specific on the record explanation from Miller of her plans, if any, to seek a book deal. For us in publishing, however, that's no surprise; in our little world, not only is the NYT not the best newspaper in the country, it's a second-rate paper, committing errors both of commission and omission on a regular basis. The notion of the Times' greatness is legacy more than something they earn today. It's still a paper that employs some great reporters and produces some great work--but they would like to remain in a paradigm in which their very best work gives institutional authority (a free pass if you will) to everything they do, and I think that's where we have all gotten smarter. Helped along by the bloggers and reporters at smaller papers who also do great work that can now be more easily recognized and trusted without needing the blessing of institutional authority. (Of course it cuts both ways; Huffington got attention for her post because we already recognize her for other work. If her blog reporting remains this sloppy, though, she'll lose that authority quickly.) But as other posters have pointed out in various ways, the Post doesn't necessarily qualify for top slot, particularly if you are using the Judy Miller lens. The Post has had the same kind of problem of divided allegiances and priorities with Bob Woodward for years--and certainly with Deep Throat, the interests of the newspaper and its readers have consistently come second to the personal interests of Woodward and his book career. Interestingly, I can see this process getting worse all over: as newspapers come to rely on star reporters for their authority more than the organization as a whole, the star reporters will be acting with their personal interests in mind foremost. As that process kicks in, those star reporters will realize they can do as well or better as independent blogger/columnist-types--they don't need the big newspapers for authority, or funding, along with the accompanying restrictions. And then compiling a list of any great newspapers will get harder and harder. Posted by: Michael Cader at October 5, 2005 6:24 PM | Permalink Let my subscription to The NYT lapse a month or so ago and I only miss it on Sundays- it was the third or fourth paper I was looking at most days. Posted by: patrick mattimore at October 5, 2005 7:29 PM | Permalink So, to summarize: The NYT and/or the WaPo are "No. 2 in every sense of the word," "Pravda," "fishwrap," "poisoning your mind with misinformation," "nothing but agenda-driven partisan hackery," "monoculture(s)," and (only slightly exaggerating) "knee-jerk, hide-bound psuedo-intellectuals engaging in a self-congratulatory soap opera of dysfunction." Whew! Those are some great zingers! Particularly that last one! My question: Compared to what? Compared to the ideal concept of newspaper? Fair enough. But if the ideal is the standard by which we are to judge everything, how might we judge our other institutions? Paging Dr. Plato...paging Dr. Plato... Posted by: Daniel Conover at October 5, 2005 7:52 PM | Permalink My question: Compared to what? Compared to a reasonable, achievable standard of what a newspaper ought to be. Compared to what the blogosphere actually is. It's an academic question, really. Neither the NYT or WaPo will be significant in five years time. Posted by: Evil Pundit at October 5, 2005 8:59 PM | Permalink Sorry EP, but this quote implies otherwise - there will always be a red-meat audience that hungers for Dowdisms, etc. Name 3 great WaPo op-ed writers who match Dowd, Friedman, and Krugman? To paraphrase Churchill, these op-ed writers are "matchless". Posted by: Fen at October 6, 2005 12:12 AM | Permalink Thanks for some meaty and interesting comments, everyone. Michael Cader: I wanted to reply to your analysis, excellent as it is. The parallel, Miller to Woodward: I do think over time he became a liability to the Post as the journalism in his books turned into something not quite journalism or history, but a subgenre of his own: you'll-just-have-to-trust-me (even though my methods don't inspire trust) books. Also I think you are right: the way trust is built online revolves around individuals, and the smart news organization will promote these new "voices." But then the people with the voices (and user base) will realize they have the authority themselves, and can strike out on their own with no substantial loss. What becomes of the "great" news organization? Re: The Times..."They would like to remain in a paradigm in which their very best work gives institutional authority (a free pass if you will) to everything they do." I think that's very true, and a key problem for the bosses and visionaries there. It prevents an accurate assessment of value added, which is a point I tried to make in my post on Times-Select: "If I were Martin Nisenholtz, one of my worries would be over-estimating the marketplace value, and misstating the unique selling proposition of a Herbert, a Maureen Dowd, a David Brooks." Finally: All I said is that one ship pulled ahead of the other. That doesn't mean the lead ship isn't in disrepair or off course or too difficult to turn in rough seas. It could be all those things--or rusting at the same rate as the other big ships--and still be ahead. Posted by: Jay Rosen at October 6, 2005 12:28 AM | Permalink Brilliant column, thank you. Just one thing: The Washington Post the best paper in the country? You must not live here! The print edition has some capable political and national reporters, and one or two interesting writers elsewhere. Otherwise, it's a corporate newsletter, a blandly self-congratulatory, Washington-insider's tip sheet. The front page story placements are often a mystery, the op-ed columnists are unreadably dull with the occasional exception of Meyerson or Kinsley, the Style section is an embarrassment each and every day, filled with kitchen-table freelancers' pennysaver-style musings and amateurish, hamfisted film and arts writing. (The Times's A.O. Scott writes about the movies; the Post's Stephen Hunter writes about HIMSELF.) Press "critic" Howard Kurtz spoons out unserious, bite-sized media trivia that will offend no one powerful, least of all his employers at The Post and CNN. The Post has no science writing to speak of. The Health and Home sections are, each in their own way, addressed to the dimmest of readers. Even the gossip column never has anything fresh or witty. Not discomforting Laura Bush any more than absolutely necessary seems to be the point. While kissing up to power has always been #1 on the Post's agenda, it has never bled a drop for all the murders in black Washington; a paper with an editor or publisher who cared would have made the murders of the city's children a front-page cause 15 years ago. The Times is defective all right, and increasingly so in ways that resemble the Post. But every day it has a dozen pieces I want to read, while I strain to find one in the Post. Posted by: carolyn at October 6, 2005 1:21 AM | Permalink Carolyn said it better than I did. I only disagree about Stephen Hunter and in the op-ed section, Colbert King. Why doesn't the Post run him on Sunday, instead of Saturday? He's won the Pulitzer and is a thousand times better than every other op-ed writer they have. Posted by: lou at October 6, 2005 9:58 AM | Permalink Jay— Perhaps the newspaper world can use an analogy from my area of study, the television networks’ half-hour nightly newscasts. When ABC, CBS and NBC enjoyed their positions of monopoly, some 25 years ago, it was a frequent topic of discussion as to which newscast was superior. Nowadays, in the world of fragmentation, the useful questions concern 1) commodity--which network’s coverage of a commonly-known headline story is superior and 2) enterprise—the development of new beat, the revelation of some hitherto unheard-of news, the successful investigation of fresh background details. In either case, the unit of comparison is increasingly the story (the “package” in TV terms; the “article” in newspaper parlance) not the newscast as a whole. Online delivery of news will only hasten this process. The ties that bind one story to the next one are looser in the individually-addressable online world compared with the physical facts of a newspaper front page or the temporal logic of a continuous 30-minute newscast. As monitors and consumers of journalism, we can expand our role to become facilitators and editors as well. By setting up a distributed regime of reading/viewing/checking/assessing stories online we should be able to mix-and-match individual reporting from a collection of mastheads, as it were creating our own interactive daily version of The Week. On a daily basis we can have the discussion about whose reporting is #1: but apply it to each story individually rather than to the newspaper/newscast as a whole. Posted by: Andrew Tyndall at October 6, 2005 10:05 AM | Permalink I think it's rather pointless to nominate a single newspaper as leader of the U.S. pack. Different papers have differing strengths; for me, the Post's greatest virtues lie in its national coverage. I can leave the Style section behind easily; the San Francisco Chronicle's Datebook is far superior. (I don't know what I'd do withoug my daily Jon Carroll dosage.) For coverage of significant cultural events, however, the NYT's Arts & Leisure section on Sundays is still indispensable. The Los Angeles Times, in my opinion, has done a great job with long-form stories, but I see that Dean Baquet seems to think that shortening them will increase readership and provide more column-inches for advertising... an approach that will only provide more fuel for my inclination to let my subscription lapse. We live in an age of 24-hour news networks. Instant information is available anytime we want it. Newspaper stories should become even longer; they should provide context and background to what we've already seen on CNN or MSNBC. Newspapers should become increasingly like newsmagazines were 40 years ago, in my opinion: examining the larger issues while still reporting on overnight occurrences on deadline. I don't buy four newspapers a day because I need to find out what happened; I can get that from CNN. I buy them because I want context, comment and intelligent analysis. Darren Posted by: Darren at October 6, 2005 10:14 AM | Permalink Andrew Tyndall, Well said, and I agree. Could you also address the aspects of "anchor" on newscasts (and the move away from such) and the lack of an anchor in newspapers. The value in news is the story - done well and/or not done elsewhere. What is the value of the "brand" of a newspaper or a newscast - or an anchor? Sisyphus-- The significant lesson that the broadcast television news industry has learned this year--the year that saw the departure of Brokaw and Rather and Jennings--is that nightly news audiences have barely changed despite the turmoil surrounding the face the reads the Teleprompter. ABC viewers do not even know from one night to another whether they will be watching Gibson or Vargas or Woodruff or whomever...yet they watch anyway. Viewers tune in to watch the news not the newscaster! Presumably the same is true for newspapers: readers read for the articles not for the masthead. Posted by: Andrew Tyndall at October 6, 2005 10:43 AM | Permalink Andrew Tyndall, Thanks again. I think this harkens back to previous discussions about atomization (see here and here). Jay, As Kaus points out, the market agrees with you. P.S.: Here's an eye-opening graph comparing the recent performance of WaPo and the NYT. Will they feed Pinch to the mooses? [If enough people think that, the stock will start to rise-ed. The man's a genius!] ... 1:41 P.M. The Judith Miller story brings up concerns about different standards for different stories and reopens charges of printing speculations that turn out not to be true. These are eerily reminiscent of many articles by journalists about blogging. Do journalists ask bloggers about standards and printing speculation because of their own concern about troubling events in their own profession? More importantly, does it limit their curiosity by limiting the questions to those that have a direct relationship to those concerns? What if the other questions, new questions, never get asked? Posted by: Lisa Williams at October 6, 2005 11:03 AM | Permalink Sisyphus -- That is an eye-opening graph, but it says more about the Post's business strategy than its journalistic aspirations. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at October 6, 2005 11:39 AM | Permalink I could be wrong, but I don't think this press tour of hers is well advised. Right now most people do not know who Judy Miller is, and of those who do, most would not recognize her on the street if they saw her. I suspect it is in her interest to leave it that way. Posted by: Alice Marshall at October 6, 2005 1:25 PM | Permalink Many great comments here, as usual. This is what I've learned here so far: The era of the "greatest newspaper in the land" may well be over, and they have no one to blame but themselves. The curtailment of bureaus nationwide, as well at worldwide, have left the "national" papers merely local. But, so what? This is the era of everyman (or person)is his/her own editor. (And please spare me your tired cliches about how p |
Print