Slashdot Mirror

Journalism becomes nothing but PR when journalists don't report a story because they overheard something that 'was considered private and off-the-record'.

Disagree strongly, and I have worked as a journalist. A journalist is not a spy. Also, a journalist has a duty to determine what is news and what is simply information that has not been publicly disclosed. I'm sure there are lots of people who would like to know where Nancy Pelosi is on her menstrual cycle every time she makes a speech of votes in Congress, but this type of information simply isn't "fit to print," as the New York Times motto goes.

And speaking of the Times, here is a passage from that paper's journalistic ethics policy:

27. Staff members and others on assignment for us must obey the law in the gathering of news. They may not break into buildings, homes, apartments or offices. They may not purloin data, documents or other property, including such electronic property as databases and e-mail or voice-mail messages. They may not tap telephones, invade computer files or otherwise eavesdrop electronically on news sources. In the case of government orders or court directives to disclose a confidential source, journalists will consult with the newsroom management and the legal department on the application of this paragraph.

(emphasis mine)

Trust me, you are far better off when responsible journalists develop sources in a fair, honest, professional manner, rather than resorting to tabloid tactics. A journalist who blasts the slightest gaffe in 72-point headlines will quickly cease to hear anything at all.

It's like the beat cop who hauls everybody down to the precinct for the slightest infraction, versus the one who lets folks slide for the occasional open container or vandalism charge. Of the two, the one with the "zero tolerance policy" is going to have a much tougher time doing his job when something really important comes along.

I'd like to see many more media statements backed by explicit wagers, and not just the indirect gamble of the stock market.

What?

Is Timothy seriously saying he wants journalists to have a direct financial stake in the outcome of the events they cover?

It also sounds like he's saying most journalists gamble on their reporting by investing in the stock market. Reputable publications tend to have ethics policies that forbid that.

Whether Tesla ships its car or not, this whole "bet" is nothing more than a self-promotional push by a conceited glory-hound.

The problem was that free Internet content at that time depended on the revenue stream from paid subscribers, who received the hardcopy edition. With a small number of Internet-based readers, and lots of hardcopy readers, the system worked well enough.

Actually, most of newspapers' revenue comes from advertising rather than subscriptions.
NY Times 2010 Annual Report (p. 60) (pdf)
Gannett 2009 Annual Statement (p. 32) (pdf)
Granted, the gap between Advertising and Circulation revenue is closing as the newspapers loses subscribers. But there is no reason (in theory) that they can't increase digital advertising revenue, they just have to figure out a way to sell those digital eyes to the advertisers (who don't seem to be willing to pay as much, which doesn't make sense since you get better target digital ads).

The New York Times ethical standards are here:
http://www.nytco.com/press/ethics.html
In particular see rule 21.

Also, journalists do not reveal their sources. We didn't know the identity of 'deep throat' for close to 40 years despite intense speculation. More recently, journalists went to jail for not revealing the identity of their sources in the Valerie Plame case.

My apologies for the curt response and congratulations on your baby!

You do know that the New York Times is bleeding red ink on a scale similar to GM and Chrysler, right?

Well, they can just print in black ink!

Seriously, how is New York Times bleeding red ink like GM and Chrysler? I'm looking at their 2008 financial statements. The only reason it's showing net loss is because of impairment charges of goodwill.

Here's their 2009 2nd quarter result.

some journalists tend to write about certain corporations they have stocks in.

I don't doubt that what you say is true, but I'd like to point out for the people who will inevitably take your statement as gospel that this practice is generally regarded as a breach of journalistic ethics. The New York Times company, for example specifically prohibits journalists who cover business stories from playing the market.

The trade press is less stringent about such things, but good journalists everywhere are well aware of financial conflicts in their reporting and take steps to mitigate such. Some tech reporters I know choose not to invest in any technology stocks. I myself own no individual stocks in any tech companies, though I do hold some mutual funds which may or may not contain such stocks. I invest based solely on the performance of the fund and make no particular effort to find out what specific companies may be represented.

As with any field, there are always a few bad apples.

What context?

The article stresses the role of Bush administration policies without mentioning that many of these same policies were originated by the Clinton administration and were very much supported by Congress as well. Sort of like reading an article blaming Nixon for the Vietnam War without mentioning Kennedy or Johnson.

To be fair, the coverage is more balanced if you look at the whole series of which the article is part, but unless there's an article that focuses solely on the failure of Congressional oversight or one that discusses the origins of these policies in the Clinton administration then it's still not very even-handed. (I looked at the titles of the other articles and didn't see any that obviously fell into those categories, but maybe they're in there somewhere.)

I am not a Time's worshiper by any means but why is that people insist on measuring it against some Platonic ideal?

The issue is that the Times itself continues to pretend to ascribe to the journalistic ideal of objectiveness, and despite its decline it still has a wide enough readership to be influential. Plus, in the context of this discussion, I believe they would emphasize that objectivity when trying to claim superiority over newer media like blogs. If they just came right out and said "OK, we're biased, if you want the full story you should read some conservative blogs and split the difference" then there wouldn't be grounds for complaint.

Precisely, and the NPAA, the the AP and and the nyt (ok, perhaps a bad example ;) agree with you.

All of the above groups have instituted policies that prevent people from changing or editing the content of the photos. Unfortunately, we are now / have been seeing somewhat of a backlash and you have papers who ban all editing of photos beyond cropping. No color touchups, no levels adjustments, nothing. Termination offense too and some people have lost awards because of color corrections (minor ones) too.

What shocks me is that there are a great number of people who actually support these policies. I'm afraid that many of these apologists have little or no knowledge of RAW formats, HDR images (some cameras have basic hdr built in now), color casts, white balance, telephoto compression, the levels tool, or really, anything at all about the printing process or photography. I'm afraid that they are living in their own little dream world.
Now - I realize that you can do a lot with levels - like the oj time cover - but banning any color correction or minor edits on the part of the photographer is just plain stupid.

Since you read the Times' admission that they featured Miller on the front page, and buried the "balance" elsewhere where fewer people would read it, you know that the Times has admitted that they supported the war. Even that apologia was just a way to make people's criticism of the Times harder to make stick even though it is just as valid. Publishing "other views" like Krugman is a way to hedge their bets, create the appearance of "balance" between two sides of a many sided story.

If I could forget that the Times published the Pentagon Papers, it would be because that was thirty years ago. I happened to have a friend in college whose aunt was in the Times editorial board meeting the year before (1985), when their wire correspondent in Nicaragua started filing "Contra" stories. The Times editorial decision not to cover this serious story was, apparently, "because Americans won't believe it". That kind of convenient declination to cover a real story, because it's difficult, surprising, defines the New York Times, and the rest of the corporate media.

The NY Times Company is a $3.3B:y corporation, with significant other media holdings. Including 18 other newspapers, 8 TV stations, 2 NY radio stations, etc. The NYT newspaper is hardly "independent" of those other corporate holdings. And of course it's hardly independent of the corporations whose advertisements pay for most of that $3.3B. Then there are the other corporations, owned by NYT shareholders, directed by NYT board members, or otherwise dependent on the way that NYT defines "the news" and "history".

I've been reading the NYT for about as long as you, along with (occasionally) other NYC newspapers. It's always been obvious to me that they represented the multinational corporate sensibility. But when I was young, I admired that; as I've grown older, I've grown to realize how much that sensibility is at odds with my own, without a multinational corporation of my own to govern my world view. Even when I did have one, for about 4 years in the 1990s bubble, I didn't believe what they said, though I appreciated what their reporting did for the value of my company.

Since you have such a strong appetite for reading, I suggest you read Chomsky's _Manufacturing Consent_. Even if you dispute his meticulous research, and very clear conclusions, it will give you a chance to consider just how often the Times, and its fellow media corporations, uses the simple "pressure release" of an alternative view of the story, just to enable the majority of their coverage to suit the corporate agenda.

In any situation when we cite anonymous sources, at least some readers may suspect that the newspaper is being used to convey tainted information or special pleading. If the impetus for anonymity has originated with the source, further reporting is essential to satisfy the reporter and the reader that the paper has sought the whole story. ...

We do not grant anonymity to people who use it as cover for a personal or partisan attack. If pejorative opinions are worth reporting and cannot be specifically attributed, they may be paraphrased or described after thorough discussion between writer and editor. The vivid language of direct quotation confers an unfair advantage on a speaker or writer who hides behind the newspaper, and turns of phrase are valueless to a reader who cannot assess the source.

Apart from that, isn't it too precious to hear a lawyer complaining about "piggishness".

Almost all the "first-tier" papers tried charging for content. The WSJ was the only one that was succesful.

First of all, none of the major newspapers tried charging for content. The WSJ was unique.

Second, the WSJ offers considerably more than the content of the print edition. It offers its complete online database of company information, the content of Barrons, the content of the Asian and European WSJ, and a personal portfolio management application. To an investor, access to the company information database alone is worth many times the cost of the subscription.

Third, it is not clear whether the Web site's profit takes into account the full cost of the content it gets from print edition and other sources.

NYTimes of the 1950s which has a large international staff (and thus plenty of original international content) probably could have had a pay website.

The New York Times still has more than 20 foreign bureaus. The problem is that only 15% of Americans say they regularly follow international news. It is therefore unlikely foreign news is the missing ingredient that would make a Web site profitable.

The NYTimes today doesn't have anything all that important to say.

The Times won a Pulitzer in 2005 for exposing the "corporate cover-up of responsibility for fatal accidents at railway crossings." The Pulitzer in 2004 was for a series of stories than examined "death and injury among American workers and exposed employers who break basic safety rules." The Pulitzer for 2003 was for a series that "exposed the abuse of mentally ill adults in state-regulated homes." The list goes on.

NYT's daily circulation is over a million. Do you really think they'd notice?

You're right, the circulation data is out there.

1.1million people per day is quite a lot, but what you must remember is that it is not just the advert but the associated press about the advert that will make the news as well. I imagine that people like the BBC, new.com will pick up on the advert and run stories about how it was funded. This will vastly increase the reach of the advert.

This response makes it clear that you either DO NOT read the NY times, or you are so partisan, that anything they say is fine with you.

Yet your response doesn't cite any sources, merely makes assertions.

The Times is so heavily in support of the DNC and the Democratic party that sometimes I wonder if those 'talking points' faxes actually exist.

What, like the talking points handed down from on-high by Fox News? I've never heard of the NYT doing that, but feel free to provide citations.

The times has on a number of occasions printed statements by people critical of Bush that were in fact never said. Furthermore, just what was that big pulitzer prize for? The one they're always trumpeting?

You're going to have to be specific, since the NYT has won 90 Pulitzers, more than any other paper, and 11 in the last three years.

The times is highly biased towards the left. Always has been. And again, the nuclear program was only one of several reasons. The only reason for this article is to help their candidate.

The reason the administration needs to come up with "explanation after explanation" is that each explanation seems to keep exploding in their faces. And your response fits in perfectly with the two-step process this administration uses for damage control:

1. Claim they never heard about X, where X is: Abu Gharib, the $560B cost of Medicare expansions, the aluminum tubes, warnings about the 9/11 attacks, etc, etc,
2. Paint the messenger as being a biased partisan attack dog for the other side, even if said person is a former employee of theirs (i.e., Paul O'Neil, Richard Clarke, General Zinni, etc, etc).

I still haven't seen any credible claims that the Times manipulates the news; their editorial page isn't for Bush, but I haven't seen that played out in the news sections.

Feel free to prove me wrong. Vague assertions don't count.

-jdm

This response makes it clear that you either DO NOT read the NY times, or you are so partisan, that anything they say is fine with you.

Yet your response doesn't cite any sources, merely makes assertions.

The Times is so heavily in support of the DNC and the Democratic party that sometimes I wonder if those 'talking points' faxes actually exist.

What, like the talking points handed down from on-high by Fox News? I've never heard of the NYT doing that, but feel free to provide citations.

The times has on a number of occasions printed statements by people critical of Bush that were in fact never said. Furthermore, just what was that big pulitzer prize for? The one they're always trumpeting?

You're going to have to be specific, since the NYT has won 90 Pulitzers, more than any other paper, and 11 in the last three years.

The times is highly biased towards the left. Always has been. And again, the nuclear program was only one of several reasons. The only reason for this article is to help their candidate.

The reason the administration needs to come up with "explanation after explanation" is that each explanation seems to keep exploding in their faces. And your response fits in perfectly with the two-step process this administration uses for damage control:

1. Claim they never heard about X, where X is: Abu Gharib, the $560B cost of Medicare expansions, the aluminum tubes, warnings about the 9/11 attacks, etc, etc,
2. Paint the messenger as being a biased partisan attack dog for the other side, even if said person is a former employee of theirs (i.e., Paul O'Neil, Richard Clarke, General Zinni, etc, etc).

I still haven't seen any credible claims that the Times manipulates the news; their editorial page isn't for Bush, but I haven't seen that played out in the news sections.

Feel free to prove me wrong. Vague assertions don't count.

-jdm

Bad example. One thing Salon's not gonna avoid is bankruptcy.

The New York Times digital edition does not have the same problems that Salon does.

he major music companies may fret over falling revenue, but one label saw its business jump 33 percent last year -- thanks in part to the recordable compact discs that the industry says are hurting its sales.

The label, Smithsonian Folkways Recordings, is using recordable CD's, or CD-R's, to ensure that each release in its extensive catalog is always available. And in doing so, the label best known for dusty recordings by Woody Guthrie and Lead Belly is taking initial steps toward creating a 21st-century "celestial jukebox," where nothing recorded ever goes out of print.

The Folkways inventory includes 2,168 titles dating to 1948. Some of those are collections by familiar troubadours like Pete Seeger and Phil Ochs. But many more are obscurities like "Music From Western Samoa: From Conch Shell to Disco" (1984) and "Folk Songs of the Canadian North Woods" (1955).

Most recording companies, if they would ever release titles like that to begin with, would let the master tapes languish once a first pressing was sold out and initial interest had waned.

The notion of any recording falling into history's dust bin was said to gall Moses Asch, founder of Folkways Records. Dan Sheehy, director of Smithsonian Folkways, recalled that Mr. Asch used to ask if Q would be dropped from the alphabet just because it wasn't used as much as the rest of the letters.

When the Smithsonian Institution bought Folkways from the Asch estate in 1987, the museum agreed to keep every title in print. Initially, requests for rare, out-of-stock albums were fulfilled with dubbed cassettes.

Now, music fans hankering for "Burmese Folk and Traditional Music" from 1953 can pay $19.95 and receive a CD-R "burned" with the original album, along with a standard cardboard slipcase that includes a folded photocopy of the original liner notes.

The Recording Industry Association of America, a trade group representing the major music corporations, worries that CD-R technology aids music piracy. Rather than buy new CD's, the theory goes, people will burn downloaded music onto CD-R's or burn a copy of a friend's CD.

In 2002, 681 million CD's were sold, down from 763 million the year before, according to Nielsen SoundScan. But Smithsonian Folkways Recordings has been using the CD-R technology since 1996 to sell its obscure titles, essentially creating a just-in-time delivery model for record companies. Every time an order comes in, a Folkways employee burns five copies, one for the customer, and four for future requests.

Last year, the company sold 13,467 CD-R's, accounting for 6 percent of its CD sales, said Richard Burgess, director of marketing. Over all, Smithsonian Folkways had net album sales of almost $2.9 million in 2002, up 33 percent from 2001, despite its cutting its advertising budget more than 50 percent.

Interest in Smithsonian Folkways has jumped since the bluegrass-flavored soundtrack to "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" (2001), from Universal, won a Grammy for Album of the Year and went platinum six times over.

But it is not just rustic American music that Smithsonian Folkways is selling.

A 2002 double-CD set of Middle Eastern and Asian songs called "The Silk Road: A Musical Caravan" has sold 7,800 copies, according to Nielsen SoundScan.

Though that is just a fraction of the sales for Eminem in a single week, it is a respectable figure for a museum label that makes no videos, places few ads and deals primarily in music recorded by artists long dead, or in foreign languages, or from locales most Americans will never visit.

"Getting rid of inventory, which is what this custom on-demand stuff is about, is a huge step in the right direction toward making even low-selling albums into a business," said Josh Bernoff, principal analyst at Forrester Research.

Industry analysts say it is also a step toward making all music forever available, one the record business has yet to take successfully.

In 1999, Alliance Entertainment's RedDotNet subsidiary unveiled kiosks that would burn discs in retail outlets while customers waited. But that program failed, in part because the company was not able to secure licensing agreements with major labels, according to Eric Weisman, president and chief executive of Alliance.

Echo, a new consortium of retailers including Best Buy, Tower and Wherehouse, is considering development of in-store stations that would allow customers to download music onto portable digital music players like Apple's iPod.

While the Smithsonian Folkways CD-R operation allows the company to fulfill its obligation to keep everything in print, it is a labor-intensive solution that would be inefficient for the higher-demand catalogs of the major labels.

But Smithsonian Folkways is also venturing into just-in-time delivery for more popular titles. Last fall, the company enlisted the print-on-demand company Americ Disc to manufacture CD's, which are expected to sell significantly more copies than typical CD-R's, but fewer than full-blown retail releases. These Collector's Series discs come with full-color booklets and are identical in quality to commercial releases, but are sold only through the Smithsonian Folkways Web site (www.si.edu/folkways).

The first CD in the series, "Bells & Winter Festivals of Greek Macedonia" proved so popular through mail order that the company quickly made it a regular retail release.

It is hard for some to ignore the irony that as Smithsonian Folkways uses CD-R's to further its business, much of the industry hopes to limit the technology's use.

"It's almost like a little bootlegger's operation going on," said Dean Blackwood, owner of Revenant Records, an esoteric Americana label.

NY Times and NYT-owned papers (e.g. Boston Globe) have similar content partnerships.

Wrong. The Times has no major media company involved in ANY deal for content, and that is INTENTIONAL. No CNN. No MSNBC. No :shudder: Fox News. None. Don't you think one of those organizations (ok, maybe not Fox) would LOVE to have the NYT as a content supplier?

Same with the BBC, and same with the AP (which is completely independenty of any media organization.)

How dare you make blanket comments? Yes, the Post is working with MSNBC, yes CNN is owned by AOL/TW... those are obvious. I hate seeing /. trolls who lump the Times in with that crowd.

That is exactly right. I can't even begin to put a dollar amount on how much the Google cache has saved me by coughing up old articles & columns from the NY Times and LA Times archives that I'd otherwise have to pay about $2 a pop for. This is one of those "too good to be true" features that, when I first discovered it, I was positive would be going the way of the dodo RSN--and that was probably 2 years ago. The papers and others in the same situation simply must know what's going on here and choose to ignore it (no one's made a stink about the Google cache to my knowledge.) My only guess is that the journos cranking out said papers have for once prevailed over the bean counters--as a reporter (at an NYT Co. paper, no less, and I still have to pay for their archives!), I'd sooner lose a kidney than Google & the Google cache. It's simply the most invaluable single source of data on the planet, there's no other way to describe it. Most other reporters in the newsroom use it as religiously as I do. Maybe NYT doesn't want to kill everyone's fun.