Campaign Outsider

Arthur Brisbane, the new public editor at the New York Times, has gotten busy in a hurry.

First he took on Times alpha-female Gina Kolata in this web post. Then, in Sunday’s dead-tree Times, he took on the entire paper.

Headline:

In an Age of Voices, Moving Beyond the Facts

Lede:

WHAT some call opinion, others call interpretive journalism — a label as opaque as the practice. Call it what you will, nothing has generated more reader indignation in the past few weeks than when it has appeared on a news page.

The morphing of news has stuck in some readers’ craw for a long time, and all three of The Times’s previous public editors dealt with the issue. But I believe the phenomenon is accelerating and has the potential to redefine the newspaper.

Of course, newspapers have been forced to redefine themselves: Because most of their news isn’t actually new, newspapers have decided that analysis and context are the keys to their future.

Except analysis and context = editorial bias in the minds of many readers.

Compounding the problem, as Brisbane notes, the Times has sliced its news content thinner than prosciutto:

Indeed, it is evident that The Times sees the rise of interpretive material as desirable and manageable. To help readers with this, it offers the online “Readers’ Guide.”

“In its news pages,” the guide says, “The Times presents both straightforward news coverage and other journalistic forms that provide additional perspective on events.”

The “Man in the News” form, it says, is “not primarily analytical but highlights aspects of the subject’s background and career that shed light … ”

While the “Reporter’s Notebook” is busy “supplementing coverage.” And the “Memo” is a “reflective article.”

The “Journal,” by contrast, is a “sharply drawn feature … closely observed and stylishly written.” (Where do I look for the grossly observed and unfashionably written stuff?)

The “News Analysis” form “draws heavily on the expertise of the writer.”

And the “News-Page Column” . . .  calls for a “distinctive point of view.”

Brisbane’s conclusion:

These narrow distinctions reflect the struggle to remain impartial while publishing more and more interpretive material. How to resolve this tension?

One path is to do a much better job of labeling the work — and please don’t bother with the fine distinctions. Call it commentary or call it opinion, but call it something that people can understand.

That, or abandon the sacred cloak of impartiality.

I vote for the former but concede that the latter may offer better traction in the opinion-gorged landscape of the future.

As the journalism and politics of belief displace the journalism and politics of fact, Brisbane just might have a point.