This piece -- a conversation between columnists David Brooks and Gail Collins, touches on some of the very issues we discussed last week surrounding relationships with sources. Brooks and Collins provide some interesting nuggets on the media as they see it -- within the realm of opinion, in this case.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/30/old-media-v-new-media/?ex=1293595200&en=5a7e67879e074ea3&ei=5087&WT.mc_id=OP-D-I-NYT-MOD-MOD-M156-ROS-0710-PH&WT.mc_ev=click
One way that Brooks tries to keep himself balanced in his writing is to be sure he is not spending more time interviewing sources on one side vs. another: "I try to interview one Republican for each Democrat. Sometimes it’s head-spinning because they see the world so differently, but at least it compels you to try to be fair." Moreover, idea of having an interview "quota" -- in Brooks' case about 15 a week -- to keep on track is an interesting one. I imagine it would keep you extremely connected and involved in the conversations around you (in this case in Washington).
I also think that Collins makes an interesting point when she says the following: "I see the columnist’s job as taking all that complexity and boiling it down so you can make sense of it for the reader." As a columnist she is presenting opinion, but she is doing so based on facts and research, which she then interprets for the reader.
I am a regular reader of the NYTimes Opinion pages. I find that the you can pretty much rely on each of the regular columnists to present their point of view consistently. Brooks may interview both Dems and Reps but his columns lean right. I don't read Collins so much and am not boycotting Maureen Dowd because I found her kvetching about Obama not being emotive enough incredibly irritating. Frank Rich who is a former film reviewer often writes some interesting columns. But overall, I believe they are all written to get a rise out of the reader and generate lots of comments. I can't help but wonder if the columnists are measured and rewarded by the number of hits their pages get online. And if they are, is that journalism?
ReplyDeleteHere's a piece from Al Jazeera's opinion page. 'Wall Street leads in phony reform'
ReplyDeletehttp://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2010/06/20106297251323258.html
It is much harder hitting than the Times usually does. And it is frightening.
I agree that they are designed to rile people up. Ever reach Jeff Jacoby's column in the Globe? He corrupts the rules of logic to supposedly prove his opinion. Then declares outright that he has proven it! Arrrggghhh! (Logic 101 was one of the valuable classes I took in college. I refer back to it almost every day.)
ReplyDeleteoops. I meant read, not reach.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThere is no doubt that the intent is to prove one side. Collins even says: "That’s why I love working on the opinion side of the business. You get to say: 'And then the Senate, beset with all the pressures and conflicts that bedevil a democratic legislature, did the stupidest thing possible.'" However I do think that a) their own interesting methods of getting the story (like interview quotas) before then presenting their points of view are valuable (after all, Brooks' views are likely what they are because, in part, of years of interviewing many, many varied sources), and b) I do think this is absolutely journalism, though a specific brand of it. They still need to dig up facts, to get correct information, and THEN to interpret it...so while they give strong opinions designed to encourage public debate (which is arguably one important facet of journalism), it is not as though they are fictionalizing. I will, however, agree that if they were receiving compensation for increased pageviews (I can't imagine the NYT would do that...), then yes, that would be a violation of journalistic values on many levels.
ReplyDeleteI meant to say that I AM boycotting Maureen Dowd.
ReplyDelete