I’ve been saying this for years — I even wrote about it — but as you point out, when reporters and editors gather in bars and talk shop, they know exactly what’s going on. Far too many of them do not ask themselves whether their audiences do. They ask themselves whether what they’ve written is factually wrong and whether they’ll get angry emails and possibly death threats from right wingers.
And I really just don’t know what to do with someone who writes “Efforts to prosecute … have been slowed by lack of evidence.” That’s just purely horrific please-don’t-hit-me-again writing.
Last thing: I don’t like the framing that the headline and lead are all that most people read. That’s exactly what the Times and the Post want to hear, so they can smugly say “That’s why you need to subscribe and read the whole thing.” The first day I spent in a newsroom I was taught that headline writers were the most important and in some ways the best writers in a newsroom.
And the bulk of our two weeks of training was devoted to writing headlines, comparing with the other trainees and seeing that every story could have five different headlines, none of them actually wrong but all saying very different things. And learning to respect the power that comes with that.
In short, these people know what they’re doing. I have too much experience to buy into conspiracy theories about what goes on in newsrooms (except maybe Weiss,s CBS), but they know what they’re doing.
Wonderfully helpful! This is why I read substacks, etc. I often read the other guys first and then check the NYT and am appalled. But you do it better! Thanks
I have to wonder how much of this is editorial reshaping as opposed to what reporters are actually writing. Julian was one of my U.S. News colleagues years ago and he was a damn good reporter who didn't mince words and never hedged anything that was clear-cut.
"The burden shouldn’t be on readers to glean the real meaning from a news article. "
It's worse than making it hard to understand what's going on. It actually feeds denial. Readers can conclude that things aren't bad, BECAUSE A PAPER OF RECORD IS MAKING IT SEEM LIKE THEY'RE NOT THAT BAD!
Mealy-mouthed journalism pushes readers toward denial. And denial leads to acceptance. And acceptance leads to the end of democracy.
I hate that framing - "vaccine proponent," and "pro vaccine" as pejorative by the anti-vaccine loons. To see it in NYT. This boomer new yorker gave up on them, largely.
I was out walking and trying to comment on my iphone without my glasses in the cold. To be more clear, this was the headline and first paragraph of a NYT article yesterday. Exact byline: "The disclosure is the latest example of how the urgent push to release the files led to the government publicizing information it would normally keep under wraps." This byline is not exactly the same as yesterday, but you get my point, and they also change the headlines in the online version. My point is, it's funny how "in the push," they managed to redact perps names and release victims names.
"The current push for an Epstein-Iran war is primarily to distract the public from the ongoing Administration coverup of the Trump-Epstein files."
If it does indeed become a shooting war, Iran will close the Straits of Hormuz to the tankers that supply 20% of global oil supply. Since 85% of this Persian Gulf oil is bound for Asian ports, it will quickly cause a local recession there that will soon become global. Expect to pay more at the pump. And for everything else.
" [When,] in that drive to power, they will commit so many high crimes and unutterable treasons, to add to those already committed, that simple self-preservation demands they can never allow a transfer of power to anyone who might hold them accountable. "
Thank you for writing more clearly what I mutter at the screen with every news story I read from the New York Times. One suggestion: you write "This is like writing about 'gravity activists' and 'gravity proponents' – except gravity is actually a theory and vaccine efficacy is a fact." This isn't the best comparison since in science, a Theory means much more than the layman's use of the word "theory." Plus, it's the Law of Gravity, not the theory, which has even more weight and science behind it. The Theory of Evolution is called that because it has a mountain of supporting evidence and is widely accepted. Maybe say something like "This is like writing about 'Flat Earth activists" and 'The Earth is Round proponents.'" One group are nuts with no scientific basic; the other are repeating what is a known fact.
Keep up the good work, Dan. It's depressing to read framing like "efforts to investigate voting by noncitizens," which sure sounds like the "voting" is a plain fact, but the only question is whether DHS succeeds in efforts to "investigate" it. Inserting the word "baseless" here and there is weak because it doesn't strike the reader as clearly as, say, "false."
I’ve been saying this for years — I even wrote about it — but as you point out, when reporters and editors gather in bars and talk shop, they know exactly what’s going on. Far too many of them do not ask themselves whether their audiences do. They ask themselves whether what they’ve written is factually wrong and whether they’ll get angry emails and possibly death threats from right wingers.
And I really just don’t know what to do with someone who writes “Efforts to prosecute … have been slowed by lack of evidence.” That’s just purely horrific please-don’t-hit-me-again writing.
Last thing: I don’t like the framing that the headline and lead are all that most people read. That’s exactly what the Times and the Post want to hear, so they can smugly say “That’s why you need to subscribe and read the whole thing.” The first day I spent in a newsroom I was taught that headline writers were the most important and in some ways the best writers in a newsroom.
And the bulk of our two weeks of training was devoted to writing headlines, comparing with the other trainees and seeing that every story could have five different headlines, none of them actually wrong but all saying very different things. And learning to respect the power that comes with that.
In short, these people know what they’re doing. I have too much experience to buy into conspiracy theories about what goes on in newsrooms (except maybe Weiss,s CBS), but they know what they’re doing.
Wonderfully helpful! This is why I read substacks, etc. I often read the other guys first and then check the NYT and am appalled. But you do it better! Thanks
I have to wonder how much of this is editorial reshaping as opposed to what reporters are actually writing. Julian was one of my U.S. News colleagues years ago and he was a damn good reporter who didn't mince words and never hedged anything that was clear-cut.
"The burden shouldn’t be on readers to glean the real meaning from a news article. "
It's worse than making it hard to understand what's going on. It actually feeds denial. Readers can conclude that things aren't bad, BECAUSE A PAPER OF RECORD IS MAKING IT SEEM LIKE THEY'RE NOT THAT BAD!
Mealy-mouthed journalism pushes readers toward denial. And denial leads to acceptance. And acceptance leads to the end of democracy.
Resist in all non-violents manners.
Are there no schools of Journalism?
I hate that framing - "vaccine proponent," and "pro vaccine" as pejorative by the anti-vaccine loons. To see it in NYT. This boomer new yorker gave up on them, largely.
"Round Earth proponents."
NYTimes: in the push to get the (Epstein) files out, mistakes were made.
I was out walking and trying to comment on my iphone without my glasses in the cold. To be more clear, this was the headline and first paragraph of a NYT article yesterday. Exact byline: "The disclosure is the latest example of how the urgent push to release the files led to the government publicizing information it would normally keep under wraps." This byline is not exactly the same as yesterday, but you get my point, and they also change the headlines in the online version. My point is, it's funny how "in the push," they managed to redact perps names and release victims names.
"The current push for an Epstein-Iran war is primarily to distract the public from the ongoing Administration coverup of the Trump-Epstein files."
If it does indeed become a shooting war, Iran will close the Straits of Hormuz to the tankers that supply 20% of global oil supply. Since 85% of this Persian Gulf oil is bound for Asian ports, it will quickly cause a local recession there that will soon become global. Expect to pay more at the pump. And for everything else.
" [When,] in that drive to power, they will commit so many high crimes and unutterable treasons, to add to those already committed, that simple self-preservation demands they can never allow a transfer of power to anyone who might hold them accountable. "
The Birmingham Principle
Thank you for writing more clearly what I mutter at the screen with every news story I read from the New York Times. One suggestion: you write "This is like writing about 'gravity activists' and 'gravity proponents' – except gravity is actually a theory and vaccine efficacy is a fact." This isn't the best comparison since in science, a Theory means much more than the layman's use of the word "theory." Plus, it's the Law of Gravity, not the theory, which has even more weight and science behind it. The Theory of Evolution is called that because it has a mountain of supporting evidence and is widely accepted. Maybe say something like "This is like writing about 'Flat Earth activists" and 'The Earth is Round proponents.'" One group are nuts with no scientific basic; the other are repeating what is a known fact.
“Shape of Earth: Views Differ"
Flat Earth Society offers dissenting views.
Keep up the good work, Dan. It's depressing to read framing like "efforts to investigate voting by noncitizens," which sure sounds like the "voting" is a plain fact, but the only question is whether DHS succeeds in efforts to "investigate" it. Inserting the word "baseless" here and there is weak because it doesn't strike the reader as clearly as, say, "false."