Margaret Sullvan, the public editor of the NYTimes, wrote today that the paper wants to do more than ‘just the facts, ma’am’ stories. That you can find on any news site, she says. What you can’t find is the analysis.
An example?
Today the NYTimes drove a stake through Donald Trump:
Donald Trump’s surge in the polls has followed the classic pattern of a media-driven surge. Now it will likely follow the classic pattern of a party-backed decline.
Mr. Trump’s candidacy probably reached an inflection point on Saturday after he essentially criticized John McCain for being captured during the Vietnam War. Republican campaigns and elites quickly moved to condemn his comments — a shift that will probably mark the moment when Trump’s candidacy went from boom to bust.
His support will erode…
This piece was by Nate Cohn for The Upshot, the paper’s snappy comeback to Vox. Sullivan explains the logic behind that knowing attitude towards the news.
I often hear from readers that they would prefer a straight, neutral treatment — just the facts. But The Times has moved away from that, reflecting editors’ reasonable belief that the basics can be found in many news outlets, every minute of the day. They want to provide “value-added” coverage.
Think it’s a change for the better, but I don’t think the public is fully aware of what’s happening. No longer does the NYTimes just report on what happened. Today it also reports on what it believes will happen.
As does Barry Blitt for The New Yorker, in his way:
Kit Stolz 