Great insights, as always. I'd welcome your thoughts on whether the traditional legal protections for the press are at risk, particularly around protections from libel claims.
Great stuff. I've worked on numerous experiments in reader participation over the years directly inspired by Jay's ideas. They were fun, and Jay definitely inspired us to think broadly. In the end, nothing worked better in terms of inspiring reader participation and follow up than first presenting interesting in-depth factual news reporting. (I have two long-version examples of this that wouldn't fit in a comment.) Yes we need to be closely connected with our readers and involve them in our process. They still in the end want us most of all to fulfill our basic role of professionally gathering and presenting high-quality factual information
The press needs to realize they no longer have a monopoly on information, it’s now ubiquitous. As a result past practices of distorting, embellishing or selectively ignoring information that didn’t fit the news organization's position are now glaringly obvious. Joe Biden’s “sharp as a tack” is the most glaringly obvious recent case. News organizations need to have one position - is it the truth and stop function as subsidiaries of the political parties. To the hard question of parsing infinite potential content into the orginizations finite bandwidth the question needs to be “what is most relevant to our audience?”. The best tool for teasing truth & relevance out of the fog of politically tinged information is having a staff with a diverse political perspective.
Good stuff. More on what better news gathering & presentation would look like would be welcome. And how to pay for it because fewer people can or will.
Good stuff. In terms of foreign policy issues, I definitely welcome bullet points 3 and 4 versus the "textus receptus" of much of major American media over the past two years or so. I presume I don't need to say more.
Lots to chew on here. The distinction between authenticity and authoritativeness might merit a column of its own.
Great insights, as always. I'd welcome your thoughts on whether the traditional legal protections for the press are at risk, particularly around protections from libel claims.
Thanks. Shortest answer is that I see this risk as somewhat overrated, but intend to address an aspect of it next week.
Great stuff. I've worked on numerous experiments in reader participation over the years directly inspired by Jay's ideas. They were fun, and Jay definitely inspired us to think broadly. In the end, nothing worked better in terms of inspiring reader participation and follow up than first presenting interesting in-depth factual news reporting. (I have two long-version examples of this that wouldn't fit in a comment.) Yes we need to be closely connected with our readers and involve them in our process. They still in the end want us most of all to fulfill our basic role of professionally gathering and presenting high-quality factual information
The press needs to realize they no longer have a monopoly on information, it’s now ubiquitous. As a result past practices of distorting, embellishing or selectively ignoring information that didn’t fit the news organization's position are now glaringly obvious. Joe Biden’s “sharp as a tack” is the most glaringly obvious recent case. News organizations need to have one position - is it the truth and stop function as subsidiaries of the political parties. To the hard question of parsing infinite potential content into the orginizations finite bandwidth the question needs to be “what is most relevant to our audience?”. The best tool for teasing truth & relevance out of the fog of politically tinged information is having a staff with a diverse political perspective.
Good stuff. More on what better news gathering & presentation would look like would be welcome. And how to pay for it because fewer people can or will.
Here's the model for covering a city. one person. one take
ROLDO’S WORK:
http://www.clevelandmemory.org/roldo/
Good stuff. In terms of foreign policy issues, I definitely welcome bullet points 3 and 4 versus the "textus receptus" of much of major American media over the past two years or so. I presume I don't need to say more.