| Here [1] is the New York Times on Watergate, just before the 1972 election and shortly before Nixon would genuinely be impeached. It clearly explains the entire situation without speculation or judgement. It provides all information necessary and pertinent to the issue at hand, nothing more - nothing less. Nearly all statements of fact are well sourced and verifiable. There is the most bare minimum usage of anonymous sources. That is journalistic excellence. Consider their articles today. For instance the first non-opinion article I received when searching specifically for their site and Trump Russia was this [2]. The following 7 statements are the leads to 7 different paragraphs in that story. - "The tactics reflect some of the hard-charging — and polarizing — personalities of Mr. Mueller’s team" - "“They seem to be pursuing this more aggressively, taking a much harder line, than you’d expect to see in a typical white-collar case,”" - "“They are setting a tone. It’s important early on to strike terror in the hearts of people in Washington, or else you will be rolled,”" - "The moves against Mr. Manafort are just a glimpse of the aggressive tactics used by Mr. Mueller and his team of prosecutors " - "The tactics reflect some of the hard-charging — and polarizing — personalities of Mr. Mueller’s team" - "Admirers of Andrew Weissmann, one of the team’s senior prosecutors, describe him as relentless and uncompromising" - "Some lawyers defending people who have been caught up in Mr. Mueller’s investigation privately complain that the special counsel’s team is unwilling to engage in the usual back-and-forth" The piece reads like a trailer for a new low brow crime TV show. There's practically 0 valuable information, but it creates drama and starts building up characters to get readers ready for the next exciting entry. If you didn't get it - this prosecutor, he's a serious hardass - wow! Isn't that incredible!? In case you somehow missed it, they also added a picture of him looking like a hardass with the caption: "Robert S. Mueller III, a former F.B.I director, is known to dislike meandering investigations that languish for years." What a cowboy! The sheriff is in town boys! It's sad that we now find this sort of journalism acceptable. And it's certainly not the reporters' doing it. That article carries no less than 3 names on the byline with 3 contributing reporters as well. It's like blaming developers for a shoddy piece of software. They create it no doubt, but the conditions and direction of which they are operating within are outside of their control so long as they continue to retain their employment there. That Watergate story was phenomenally interesting and informative, but it wouldn't hit the lowest common denominator. For that you need that emotional attachment - the characters, the story, the sensationalism. And so that is what the NYTimes today delivers. I hope that the NYTimes new paywall push is a resounding success. So long as they are a slave to clicks, their quality will continue to deteriorate. [1] - http://www.nytimes.com/1972/11/01/archives/the-watergate-mys... [2] - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/18/us/politics/mueller-russi... |
Here's a different story on Mueller from todays NYT, which I believe is much closer in style to the Watergate article: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/26/us/politics/mueller-russi...