NYT Broadband Story: Self-Fulfilling Prophecies Make Bad Journalism

I found myself irritated by today’s story in the New York Times that asks whether putting money from the bailout toward broadband would be a waste. The question was its own answer. So was the placement of the story atop page one. The reporter creates generic groups of experts to say what he wants to say (I know the trick; I used to be a reporter): “But experts warn…. Other critics say…. Other supporters said…”

I wish that every time he did that, the words “experts,” “critics,” and “supporters” were hyperlinked to a page that listed three of each.

It’s an obvious case of a story with an agenda: ‘I’m going to set out to poke a hole in this.’ But the agenda is unstated because reporters don’t state opinions, of course, they find others (or create generic spokesmen) for their opinions.

Compare and contrast that with Andrew Ross Sorkin’s good column suggesting that watchdogs should get bonuses. It, too, has an agenda, but because it’s a column, it’s more forthright about it - and that forthrightness gives it more credibility. Yes, it’s labeled as a column. But the essential goal of both pieces of type is to make a suggestion. One is just more honest about it.

My other problem with the broadband story is that it thinks as short-term as Wall Street and politicians. It assumes that every dollar in the stimulus should work immediately. I think, on the other hand, that there is no magic bullet and that building real value and real jobs in new industries long-term is the only real answer. Enough with short-term thinking already.

Instead of a faux-definitive story on page one of the New York Times, how much better this topic could be handled as a debate. Just as the article is insufficient for complex stories, so is it inadequate for complex debates.

Comments

[pelican:]

Good comments.

Feb 04 10:09 AM

[k9s-4-k8:]

The NYT publishing a story with an agenda? Gosh. Blow me over with a feather!

Feb 04 10:24 AM

[Perki:]

What a nice summary of how our "news" is created. Though we, the readers, are ultimately at fault because we search for the "news" that fits our viewpoint. I am not sure if we do this consciously or not, though I am sure that we do it!

Using "follow the money" as a critical thinking strategy when evaluating "news" is useful.

No where more evident than in the case of the NYT and a employee-reporter. When broadband is more convenient than the newsstand, well that is proving to be a money outflow problem for the NYT.

Feb 04 10:26 AM

[Nick Gogerty:]

News articles should be based with facts and ideally transparent. Online, where possible, link to the source. The times sucks at this. No links out creates an echo chamber. They still think like a print monopoly and don't seem to be able to change very fast. It is getting chilly out and I see a dinosaur that isn't quite adapting fast enough.

Feb 05 08:58 AM

[David H. Deans:]

Frankly, this $9 billion likely won't have a significant impact, but it's a start. Granted, the critics that refer to abuses of the eRate or Universal Service funding programs have valid concerns. Regardless, that's not reason enough to pull back from a commitment to address this key infrastructure handicap -- that being, the U.S. has fallen so far behind the leading broadband nations in the world, major U.S. urban areas are already at a disadvantage. This is truly a complex economic development issue that requires more than "sound bite" public policy. America needs a substantive plan of action, that's supported by all stakeholders who put the future of the country before their own myopic vested interests.

Feb 05 11:01 AM