New at Reason

Tim Cavanaugh | February 24, 2005

Matt Welch dominates the paradigm subverters of the old media.

Comments

|2.24.05 @ 12:48PM|#

Why don't reporters just write about how they feel about a topic, and then they'll explain what they feel is needed for that topic, and then other reporters can do the same. Its biased, but enough bias all around will give you the truth. Like how enough little dots viewed from afar will give you the bigger picture.

Its why if I pick up a paper, its pretty much gonna be for the editorials.

|2.24.05 @ 2:17PM|#

> As the success of Fox News, political talk
> radio, partisan book publishing, and blogging
> has shown, there�s a healthy marketplace for
> nonobjective presentation as well.

Matt! Matt! The NYT (later with CNN etc) was always 'nonobjective' too. It's just that back in the day, no one made any money by calling their bluff. NYT didn't suddenly swing left on the day Fox hit cable.

Matt Welch|2.24.05 @ 2:36PM|#

Cridland! Cridland! Have I ever suggested anything to the contrary?

I've probably spilled more ink than most pointing out that the New York Times is a one-of-a-kind niche publication, a product of a uniquely competitive & political market, and that monopolist dailies in the rest of the country that ape its niche practices will by definition alienate their readership.

That said, I might have instead used the phrase "deliberately non-objective." It matters whether your slant is the result of a conscious differentiation, or a less conscious product of circumstance & groupthink.

|2.24.05 @ 3:54PM|#

Mine's from being touchy.