I walked out to the sidewalk this morning, picked up my copy of the New York Times, and removed its plastic cover -- soaked with Seattle rain -- with special care. Today, the newspaper seemed more precious and exceptional than usual.
Last night, I'd gone to watch the documentary, Page One: Inside the New York Times, now playing in theaters. The movie, centered on the work of David Carr, media columnist for the NYT, gives an exciting picture of what goes on behind the scenes at the paper. The film focuses especially on the financial crisis resulting from a drop in paid subscriptions and an even more drastic recent drop in advertising revenue, and on the growing rivalry between traditional print newspapers and on-line rivals such as the Huntington Post.
Carr and other Times spokesmen make a compelling case that aggregators of bits of news from all over (which adequately describes most on-line competiters) are no substitute for traditional news organizations that not only collect the news but support correspondents and news bureaus that actively seek it out.
Although the Murdoch scandal had not yet become news when the documentary was filmed, Sam Zell's purchase of the Chicago Tribune and Los Angeles Times were used to illustrate what happens when journalism is viewed primarily as a profit generating business rather than as a profession -- when "give the public what it wants" supersedes editorial judgment as to what is newsworthy. As Carr wrote last Monday in his regular column, discussing the press's role in uncovering the Murdoch scandal:
The Guardian stayed on the phone-hacking story like a dog on a meat bone, acting very much in the British tradition of a crusading press, and goosing the story back to life after years of dormancy. Mr. Murdoch, ever the populist, prefers his crusades to be built on chronic ridicule and bombast. But as The Guardian has shown, the steady accretion of fact — an exercise Mr. Murdoch has historically regarded as bland and elitist — can have a profound effect.
Everyone recognizes the value today's internet resources -- YouTube videos, tweets, citizen reporting -- provide in uncovering facts that otherwise would remain hidden. The Times itself is making increasing use of blogs on its on-line version. But significant stories need more than presentation of a melange of uncoordinated facts. They need the tenacity, organization, and editorial judgment that a good newspaper can bring to bear. (And the film discusses certain self-acknowledged lapses in such editorial judgment that have hurt the Times's credibility.)
The documentary perhaps tries to touch too many bases in an an hour and a half. Its reliance on filmed conversations among editors and writers, and on apparently unrehearsed interviews, may cause the viewer some difficulty in following its argument, and some dismay as topics change just as they are becoming interesting. But the movie -- by these very conversations in the face of deadlines and by the often tense interviews -- strongly conveys the excitement of working for a news organization with a history of excellence, one that considers itself America's "newspaper of record."
The Times editors interviewed in the movie seem optimistic that the NYT will continue as the country's leading newspaper, despite acute pressures upon it, financial and otherwise. An outside expert on media affairs was less sanguine, warning that while print newspapers provide valuable services to the country, and therefore "should" survive, it's a mistake to assume that "should survive" necessarily implies "will survive."
A glance through this morning's New York Times reveals one lengthy story after another, covering complex and crucial national, international, and business news issues. These are factual stories and analytical pieces that I doubt exist elsewhere -- except when blogs, aggregators, and lesser newspapers themselves rely, as they often do, on the original work done by the New York Times.
For years, I've subscribed to the Times's Saturday and Sunday editions. I'm now seriously considering signing up for daily delivery. Maybe that's more daily reading than I can handle -- my original reason for the limited subscription -- but I figure it's the least I can do.
I'd hate to live in a country that relied solely on CNN and Fox News for its understanding of the world.
No comments:
Post a Comment