I find that the NYT tends to write a lot about issues through writing about media about those issues. I think in some respects that's understandable--the fact that that couple put together that magazine is both useful and interesting from a human-interest and a business angle--but also slants the stories a lot in terms of the kind of reporting you can do. What can you actually say, as a media outlet, about the content of another media outlet without, for instance, just reporting on the content of the articles?
(I've been thinking about this from the perspective of someone who worked as an associate editor and reporter at a small newsweekly for about six months a few years ago, but I didn't and don't have any formal training in journalism. It was a really interesting experience and has permanently colored my viewpoint on how and why newspapers pick the stories to run that they do, and why they write about things the way they write about things. To some extent it's a large and complicated and formulated/structured guess at what you think other people are going to like, and what you yourself find interesting.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-07-16 05:11 pm (UTC)(I've been thinking about this from the perspective of someone who worked as an associate editor and reporter at a small newsweekly for about six months a few years ago, but I didn't and don't have any formal training in journalism. It was a really interesting experience and has permanently colored my viewpoint on how and why newspapers pick the stories to run that they do, and why they write about things the way they write about things. To some extent it's a large and complicated and formulated/structured guess at what you think other people are going to like, and what you yourself find interesting.)