If you haven't read this long but interesting piece in the NYT, please do. It's an interesting perspective on where journalism is and where one person believes it should be.
Bu the debate ignores one important point --- there's room for both perspectives. Journalism has devolved into three parts --- core, advocacy and opinionated explanation. The big issue --- the last two tend to contain a skewed point of view.
Arguing that POV journalism is the future ignores the problems such a position creates. News stories should explain, but when they explain from the author's viewpoint they're no longer news stories. They become Fox or MSNBC, providing little more than biased spin.
There needs to be a clear delineation so readers know what they're getting. With so may pretend journalists nowadays, readers need to understand who's trained and trusted. Just because I can cook a burger doesn't make me a chef. Just because someone has a view on the affordable care act doesn't make them a journalist.
Read the piece and see what you think.
Bu the debate ignores one important point --- there's room for both perspectives. Journalism has devolved into three parts --- core, advocacy and opinionated explanation. The big issue --- the last two tend to contain a skewed point of view.
Arguing that POV journalism is the future ignores the problems such a position creates. News stories should explain, but when they explain from the author's viewpoint they're no longer news stories. They become Fox or MSNBC, providing little more than biased spin.
There needs to be a clear delineation so readers know what they're getting. With so may pretend journalists nowadays, readers need to understand who's trained and trusted. Just because I can cook a burger doesn't make me a chef. Just because someone has a view on the affordable care act doesn't make them a journalist.
Read the piece and see what you think.
RSS Feed
