Ezra Klein: Link of the Day

« Wal-Mart and Health Care | Main | Sammydammerung Denied »

January 14, 2006

Link of the Day

Are newspapers doomed?

January 14, 2006 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c572d53ef00d8346b30ea53ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Link of the Day:

Comments

Epstein is, and always has been, a hack. A hack who cultivated a fake-genteel writing style, but a hack nonetheless, as far back as his infamous 1970 piece about how if it were up to him, he'd wish homosexuality off the face of the earth because homosexuals are so miserable.

Obviously newspapers are not doomed. They've got troubles, as they usually do, but they're still better than TV news, blogs (which mostly comment on stuff from newspapers), etc.

Most of that article is just tut-tutting about the evil liberal media putting itself out of business by daring to criticize the government (a complaint that only seems to arise in Commentary when a Republican is in the White House).

And I love this: "To state the obvious: a journalist fervently against the U.S. presence in Iraq is unlikely to pursue leaks providing evidence that the war has been going reasonably well." You don't need "leaks" to get the good news, because the government will provide the good news to the public up front. It's just an Epsteinian way of putting the hackish "why won't they report the good news from Iraq?" nonsense.

Posted by: M.A. | Jan 14, 2006 1:34:18 AM

I agree with M.A. Epstein hurrahs Walter Lippmann as the pinnacle of an unbiased newsman in the guise of an opinionater; then he tsk-tsks newspapers for "biased opinionating" in the guise of news.

It's pretty clear Epstein just agrees with certain folk (certain bloggers and TV networks, I surmise) and disagrees with other folk (the major newspapers). I think he's just out to write a hack piece bemoaning the existence of those institutions he disagrees with.

Epstein looks on the times that Lippmann and his father endured with such a heightened sense of nostalgia he seems to forget that even in the old days the newspaper media was "liberally biased."

I don't know. Not too impressed with this article frankly.

Posted by: J. Puckett | Jan 14, 2006 3:04:35 AM

I thought the article was obviously biased - he tossed out the old 76% liberal line. I do think the question is worth asking "Is journalism dead?"

I think late 20th century journalism is dying. It's being replaced by a European-style (or early 20th century America-style) political journalism. I think it's obvious that "red facts, blue facts" type journalism is really bad, and leaves us less informed than we should be.

There will always be a need for objective, fact-based journalism. However, "unbiased" journalism is on life-support.

Posted by: Unstable Isotope | Jan 14, 2006 9:52:54 AM

Some points:

1.) There is no such thing as "objective" reporting. All reporters, regardless of political affiliation, have to decide for themselves which facts deserve more prominent recognition.

2.) In absence of objective reporting, we should at least strive for fair reporting- that means working to understand peoples' actual motivations. This is difficult because people often try to hid their motivations, even if they're not nefarious.

3.) Newspapers may be in trouble, but does anyone honestly think that the Cheetos-stained wretches of the wankosphere will be able to replace them? I mean, just look at the high volume of complete misinformation put out there every day by Malkin and Powerline, each post getting a "heh-indeedy" from the rest of the wingnutosphere.

Posted by: Brad R. | Jan 14, 2006 2:00:43 PM

仓储笼
 仓储笼
 折叠式仓储笼
 仓库笼
 南京仓储笼
 上海仓储笼
 北京仓储笼
 广州仓储笼
 杭州仓储笼