Comments on: Journalists versus gadflies http://www.bookwormroom.com/2008/08/13/journalists-versus-gadflies/ Conservatives deal with facts and reach conclusions; liberals have conclusions and sell them as facts. Fri, 10 Feb 2012 06:19:20 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: David Foster http://www.bookwormroom.com/2008/08/13/journalists-versus-gadflies/comment-page-1/#comment-27102 David Foster Wed, 13 Aug 2008 20:08:45 +0000 http://www.bookwormroom.com/?p=3396#comment-27102 "Readers aren’t turning away from the Times because of competition from new media. They’re turning away from the Times because they recognize that the product has become worthless." The NYT has hurt itself very much thru its political bias. Even without the bias, though, they'd be having a hard time. It is rare for a company that was successful at one stage of a technology to be successful in the face of a disruptive technology: it requires exceptionally talented leadership, and I've seen no evidence that Pinch Sulzberger qualifies. See Christensen & Raynor's book (my review <a href="http://photoncourier.blogspot.com/2004_05_01_photoncourier_archive.html#108533291035399783" rel="nofollow">here</a>) for a good discussion of disruptive technologies and busines strategy. NYT would be undergoing considerable suffering in any case: they have added greatly to their pain in two ways: 1)The political bias 2)The family ownership and 2-class stock sructure, leading to the retention of a leader who would not likely have been hired for such a position absent the family connection. “Readers aren’t turning away from the Times because of competition from new media. They’re turning away from the Times because they recognize that the product has become worthless.”

The NYT has hurt itself very much thru its political bias. Even without the bias, though, they’d be having a hard time. It is rare for a company that was successful at one stage of a technology to be successful in the face of a disruptive technology: it requires exceptionally talented leadership, and I’ve seen no evidence that Pinch Sulzberger qualifies.

See Christensen & Raynor’s book (my review here) for a good discussion of disruptive technologies and busines strategy.

NYT would be undergoing considerable suffering in any case: they have added greatly to their pain in two ways:

1)The political bias
2)The family ownership and 2-class stock sructure, leading to the retention of a leader who would not likely have been hired for such a position absent the family connection.

]]> By: 1Lulu http://www.bookwormroom.com/2008/08/13/journalists-versus-gadflies/comment-page-1/#comment-27101 1Lulu Wed, 13 Aug 2008 19:51:16 +0000 http://www.bookwormroom.com/?p=3396#comment-27101 The labels "extremist", "hard-line" and "gadfly", among others apply only to Conservatives. Hence Cindy Sheehan would be none of the above in the media, though she is all of the above in practice. The day the media describes Al Franken as a gadfly, Ruth Bader Ginsburg as a "hard left justice" in the same article that classifies Scalia as a "hard right justice", then I will know we have actually achieved parity in journalism. The labels “extremist”, “hard-line” and “gadfly”, among others apply only to Conservatives. Hence Cindy Sheehan would be none of the above in the media, though she is all of the above in practice. The day the media describes Al Franken as a gadfly, Ruth Bader Ginsburg as a “hard left justice” in the same article that classifies Scalia as a “hard right justice”, then I will know we have actually achieved parity in journalism.

]]> By: 11B40 http://www.bookwormroom.com/2008/08/13/journalists-versus-gadflies/comment-page-1/#comment-27099 11B40 Wed, 13 Aug 2008 18:40:42 +0000 http://www.bookwormroom.com/?p=3396#comment-27099 Greetings: I agree with your point; an editor if not the writer should have caught the using of facts not in evidence. Alternatively, it may be a case of Thesaurus-itis. Sometimes writers check the old Thesaurus for similar words but don't actually look up the definitions of those words to see the variance. I see this a good bit on TV also where the impulse to use a different word, perhaps to establish one's superior vocabulary, actually leads to an inaccuracy. Other times, it's more of the connotation-denotation thing. Greetings:

I agree with your point; an editor if not the writer should have caught the using of facts not in evidence.

Alternatively, it may be a case of Thesaurus-itis. Sometimes writers check the old Thesaurus for similar words but don’t actually look up the definitions of those words to see the variance. I see this a good bit on TV also where the impulse to use a different word, perhaps to establish one’s superior vocabulary, actually leads to an inaccuracy. Other times, it’s more of the connotation-denotation thing.

]]>