New York Times imploding from the inside.

[GooooMarquette]

Twitter is a weird place and between that and Scoop are the only places that really seem to care about this crap. Doesn't register with 50% of the population and moves the needle with far less.

Agreed.

And even for those who do give a crap, the departure of one out of about twenty Op-Ed writers does not constitute "imploding." Next man (or woman) up!

[Pakuni]

Agreed.

And even for those who do give a crap, the departure of one out of about twenty Op-Ed writers does not constitute "imploding." Next man (or woman) up!

50% seems a generous estimate of how many people outside the Twittersphere/media bubble care about this.
The funny thing is, Weis was barely an op-ed writer. She's written a grand total of 14 pieces in the last year, most about antisemitism. She was hired primarily as a news editor, and by all accounts she was a good one.

[dgies9156]

OK, I have a Marquette Journalism degree. I worked in the media for years before getting an MBA.

I care about the New York Times maintaining itself as the bastion of Journalism in the United States. It once was. It isn't today. Not by a long-shot.

To an objective reader, the media in the Acela Corridor has been deranged ever since Hillary was deprived her rightful place in mid-town Washington, a news story the Times completely missed. It's OK to think the current guy in the White House has the nation headed down the wrong path. Or that his presidential style is slightly to the right of Genghis Khan. That's fair comment and criticism.

But the outright hatred by the Washington/New York media axis of the Conservative movement is more than a little troubling. Having grown up in the south, I've had more than I sometimes can handle of the far right. But gee whiz, their ideas aren't going to bring down the republic and many of those people, as weird as they might seem, are pretty nice people and they care about their country and their fellow citizens. And, no, they probably have no idea what an Acela is!

Ultimately, the Marquette Tribune's motto sums it up best: "To promote intelligent involvement." That means the nation's newspaper of record needs to be a marketplace of ideas. It's not.

My best guess is the Times carried a local feud national and when you combine a feud with a group of people whose vision of the world ends at Newark, your paper loses perspective.

[ATL MU Warrior]

OK, I have a Marquette Journalism degree. I worked in the media for years before getting an MBA.

I care about the New York Times maintaining itself as the bastion of Journalism in the United States. It once was. It isn't today. Not by a long-shot.

To an objective reader, the media in the Acela Corridor has been deranged ever since Hillary was deprived her rightful place in mid-town Washington, a news story the Times completely missed. It's OK to think the current guy in the White House has the nation headed down the wrong path. Or that his presidential style is slightly to the right of Genghis Khan. That's fair comment and criticism.

But the outright hatred by the Washington/New York media axis of the Conservative movement is more than a little troubling. Having grown up in the south, I've had more than I sometimes can handle of the far right. But gee whiz, their ideas aren't going to bring down the republic and many of those people, as weird as they might seem, are pretty nice people and they care about their country and their fellow citizens. And, no, they probably have no idea what an Acela is!

Ultimately, the Marquette Tribune's motto sums it up best: "To promote intelligent involvement." That means the nation's newspaper of record needs to be a marketplace of ideas. It's not.

My best guess is the Times carried a local feud national and when you combine a feud with a group of people whose vision of the world ends at Newark, your paper loses perspective.

So what is the current “bastion of journalism” in the United States?

[Pakuni]

Ultimately, the Marquette Tribune's motto sums it up best: "To promote intelligent involvement." That means the nation's newspaper of record needs to be a marketplace of ideas. It's not.

You make many fair points, but this one I couldn't disagree with more. The NYT shouldn't merely be a marketplace for ideas. It should be a marketplace for truths. And the truth is that some ideas suck and some people pushing those ideas are lying, and the Times should say so. The Times ought not exist as a megaphone for any idea that comes along, regardless of its value or legitimacy. That's what Facebook is for, it seems.
Nor should the Times exist to be giving all sides their "equal say." That's irresponsible. They should always strive for fairness, but not objectivity.

Two more points:
1. For all the hand wringing and outrage over the voluntary departure of an occasional columnist (14 columns in the last year), why leave out the fact the NYT employs David Brooks, Bret Stephens and Ross Douthat as full-time columnists? These three appear far more often than Weis every did, and with a far greater platform for their conservative ideas.
Perhaps we aren't hearing this because it spoils the narrative?
2. Where are all the demands for balance at the Wall Street Journal or Fox News or the talk radio airwaves? The critics of the NYT, especially those who couch their criticisms as a matter of fairness or wanting a free exchange of ideas, are strangely quiet here.

[dgies9156]

You make many fair points, but this one I couldn't disagree with more. The NYT shouldn't merely be a marketplace for ideas. It should be a marketplace for truths. And the truth is that some ideas suck and some people pushing those ideas are lying, and the Times should say so. The Times ought not exist as a megaphone for any idea that comes along, regardless of its value or legitimacy. That's what Facebook is for, it seems.
Nor should the Times exist to be giving all sides their "equal say." That's irresponsible. They should always strive for fairness, but not objectivity.

Two more points:
1. For all the hand wringing and outrage over the voluntary departure of an occasional columnist (14 columns in the last year), why leave out the fact the NYT employs David Brooks, Bret Stephens and Ross Douthat as full-time columnists? These three appear far more often than Weis every did, and with a far greater platform for their conservative ideas.
Perhaps we aren't hearing this because it spoils the narrative?
2. Where are all the demands for balance at the Wall Street Journal or Fox News or the talk radio airwaves? The critics of the NYT, especially those who couch their criticisms as a matter of fairness or wanting a free exchange of ideas, are strangely quiet here.

Pakuni, I also think you make many fair points. In the case of the Wall Street Journal, their news coverage truly is fair, for the most part. They got out of hand a number of years ago when Foster Winans used the Heard on the Street column to conduct insider trading and Norman Pearlstein retaliated. But, for the most part, they don't have an ax to grind. And, for the most part, they work to speak the truth. Their editorials, I'll concede are center/right.

One of the sad questions today that has to be asked is, "What is truth?" In a society where we can't seem to agree on what is fact, what makes you think we can reach any kind of consensus on what truth is? The days of Dr. Beech's Phil 104 class and the concept of Positive Moral Values long ago disappeared from American public life.

As to right wing radio hosts and Fox News, do you really think they're news? Ditto for CNN and MSNBC. Rush Limbaugh, for example, is an entertainer whose stick is conservative politics. He resonates with people the way Hollywood stars resonate with people when they head for the political world.

To the question, what's the bastion of American Journalism today, sadly, I really don't know. I used to love to spend a quiet afternoon with the Los Angeles Times when I traveled west. On a cold winter day in Chicago, there was nothing better than to do a deep dive into the Chicago Tribune. Both now can be read on Sunday in about 15 minutes. And, for the record, they're now both awful!

[mu03eng]

So what is the current “bastion of journalism” in the United States?

The Onion

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

I mean, the New York Times news coverage is probably the best in the land.  The opinion section is a bit of an east coast biased mess, but that's why I rarely read it.

[mu03eng]

If we're being fair, journalism has been biased since at least the founding of the republic and seemingly before. The reason there were so many newspapers in NYC is every major political faction had a paper of record to slant their news. We are only 100 years removed from Yellow Journalism and Muckraking. Journalism's job in my opinion is to convey information(as opposed OP-eds which obviously serve a different purpose) and to generate revenue for that information. Lost in all of this "truth in journalism" debate is that it is the consumers privilege and responsibility to determine Truth. Whatever a journalist reports they should believe to be true(not an obvious lie, etc) but they shouldn't be pushing a Truth.

Obviously this is all my opinion which means it could be wrong but this fight over what journalism is seems silly. It's not monolithic and anyone railing against the character of any news organization is screaming into the wind as they will adapt to generate revenue and deliver information. I'll admit my bias, when I paid more attention to news I'd generally: watch Morning Joe as I got ready in the morning(that ended when they went all super friends with Trump), listen to conservative talk radio either on my drive in or out from work, I got the NYT and WSJ and read as much of it as I could, and in the evenings would tune in national news and maybe a touch of CNN if there were non-routine things going on. The whole point is to hear the information from different perspectives, to me it's amazing how easy it is to get to Truth when you hear from all sides.

A news organization is going to have some sort of bias and/or agenda as do all humans (our brains are literally bias engines). It would be much less dramatic around here if we could accept that and the differences and move on.

[Not A Serious Person]

So what is the current “bastion of journalism” in the United States?

Journalists are the modern day evelator operators, replaced by people doing it themselves. 

And just like elevator operators incorrectly warning that people opeating their own elevators would lead to people doing it wrong causing death and carnage, journalist are (incorrectly IMO) saying the demise of their profession will lead to something similar.

We no longer need journalist becuase technology has rendered them obsolete, just like elevator operators.

[Jockey]

Journalists are the modern day evelator operators, replaced by people doing it themselves. 

And just like elevator operators incorrectly warning that people opeating their own elevators would lead to people doing it wrong causing death and carnage, journalist are (incorrectly IMO) saying the demise of their profession will lead to something similar.

We no longer need journalist becuase technology has rendered them obsolete, just like elevator operators.

Silly.

[ATL MU Warrior]

The Onion

Nailed it!

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Journalists are the modern day evelator operators, replaced by people doing it themselves. 

And just like elevator operators incorrectly warning that people opeating their own elevators would lead to people doing it wrong causing death and carnage, journalist are (incorrectly IMO) saying the demise of their profession will lead to something similar.

We no longer need journalist becuase technology has rendered them obsolete, just like elevator operators.

Uh no.

Journalists are as important as ever.  It's the method by which their product is distributed that is changing.

[Pakuni]

Journalists are the modern day evelator operators, replaced by people doing it themselves. 

And just like elevator operators incorrectly warning that people opeating their own elevators would lead to people doing it wrong causing death and carnage, journalist are (incorrectly IMO) saying the demise of their profession will lead to something similar.

We no longer need journalist becuase technology has rendered them obsolete, just like elevator operators.

The New York Times added nearly 600,000 net subscribers in the first quarter, bringing their total above 6 million.

https://www.niemanlab.org/2020/05/the-new-york-times-success-with-digital-subscriptions-is-accelerating-not-slowing-down/

[Hards Alumni]

Journalists are the modern day evelator operators, replaced by people doing it themselves. 

And just like elevator operators incorrectly warning that people opeating their own elevators would lead to people doing it wrong causing death and carnage, journalist are (incorrectly IMO) saying the demise of their profession will lead to something similar.

We no longer need journalist becuase technology has rendered them obsolete, just like elevator operators.

[jficke13]

Uh no.

Journalists are as important as ever.  It's the method by which their product is distributed that is changing.

yup

[Mr. Sand-Knit]

If we're being fair, journalism has been biased since at least the founding of the republic and seemingly before. The reason there were so many newspapers in NYC is every major political faction had a paper of record to slant their news. We are only 100 years removed from Yellow Journalism and Muckraking. Journalism's job in my opinion is to convey information(as opposed OP-eds which obviously serve a different purpose) and to generate revenue for that information. Lost in all of this "truth in journalism" debate is that it is the consumers privilege and responsibility to determine Truth. Whatever a journalist reports they should believe to be true(not an obvious lie, etc) but they shouldn't be pushing a Truth.

Obviously this is all my opinion which means it could be wrong but this fight over what journalism is seems silly. It's not monolithic and anyone railing against the character of any news organization is screaming into the wind as they will adapt to generate revenue and deliver information. I'll admit my bias, when I paid more attention to news I'd generally: watch Morning Joe as I got ready in the morning(that ended when they went all super friends with Trump), listen to conservative talk radio either on my drive in or out from work, I got the NYT and WSJ and read as much of it as I could, and in the evenings would tune in national news and maybe a touch of CNN if there were non-routine things going on. The whole point is to hear the information from different perspectives, to me it's amazing how easy it is to get to Truth when you hear from all sides.

A news organization is going to have some sort of bias and/or agenda as do all humans (our brains are literally bias engines). It would be much less dramatic around here if we could accept that and the differences and move on.

Sad truth is there is no difference between news stories and op-eds anymore.  If u cannot see this u are delusional.  Editors allow this because they have the same political views as the writers and want to influence n educate their readers. Not inform, but influence and educate.  The left sees themselves as intellectually superior and therefore see it as a duty to influence n educate the deplorables.  Their hero even said it

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Sad truth is there is no difference between news stories and op-eds anymore.  If u cannot see this u are delusional

You need to follow better sources then.

[muwarrior69]

So what is the current “bastion of journalism” in the United States?

Along with the New York Times I would say InfoWars.

[Pakuni]

Sad truth is there is no difference between news stories and op-eds anymore.  If u cannot see this u are delusional.  Editors allow this because they have the same political views as the writers and want to influence n educate their readers. Not inform, but influence and educate.  The left sees themselves as intellectually superior and therefore see it as a duty to influence n educate the deplorables.  Their hero even said it

Is this based on your many years of working in the newsroom?

[Hards Alumni]

Sad truth is there is no difference between news stories and op-eds anymore.  If u cannot see this u are delusional.  Editors allow this because they have the same political views as the writers and want to influence n educate their readers. Not inform, but influence and educate.  The left sees themselves as intellectually superior and therefore see it as a duty to influence n educate the deplorables.  Their hero even said it

Who is the hero of the left, exactly?

[rocket surgeon]

where's our resident "journalism" scholar when ya need him??  he's gotta be chompin at the bit right now

  "got a beat up glove, a homemade bat and a brand new pair of shoes" 

    "put me in coach, i'm ready to play"

[Mr. Sand-Knit]

You need to follow better sources then.

On cue

[Jockey]

Sad truth is there is no difference between news stories and op-eds anymore.  If u cannot see this u are delusional.  Editors allow this because they have the same political views as the writers and want to influence n educate their readers. Not inform, but influence and educate.  The left sees themselves as intellectually superior and therefore see it as a duty to influence n educate the deplorables.  Their hero even said it

I think there is plenty of proof in this thread that the left is intellectually superior.

[dgies9156]

Journalists are the modern day evelator operators, replaced by people doing it themselves. 

And just like elevator operators incorrectly warning that people opeating their own elevators would lead to people doing it wrong causing death and carnage, journalist are (incorrectly IMO) saying the demise of their profession will lead to something similar.

We no longer need journalist becuase technology has rendered them obsolete, just like elevator operators.

Brother Heise, an absolutely fascinating perspective and one that I don't think is wrong. Brother MUeng correctly pointed that there has been bias in the media since it's invention. What kept publishers working was the barriers to entry for so-called amateur journalists were so high that you had to be wealthy to communicate to the world.

The reason the FCC adopted the fairness doctrine years ago was the fact that access to radio and television was so limited. But with cable, podcasts and a host of other options, the fairness doctrine was and is obsolete.

If you look at our own Marquette College of Communications, the focus has been on public relations and corporate communications. The old News-Ed sequence is the Elevator Operators of the College.

The fact is that most folks get the news from whatever free source they want. The reason is that Journalists either aren't trusted or offer a perceived value that's no different than a free source. The notion that a newspaper is "Written and Edited to Merit Your Confidence," is a trite reminder of days gone by.

As a final note, I was educated at Marquette in the 1970s. That was a golden age of journalism in the sense that reporters legitimately tried to be fair, comprehensive and objective. Those days ended about the time USA Today debuted.