undefined | Better HN

0 pointsindubitable8y ago0 comments

Here [1] is the New York Times on Watergate, just before the 1972 election and shortly before Nixon would genuinely be impeached. It clearly explains the entire situation without speculation or judgement. It provides all information necessary and pertinent to the issue at hand, nothing more - nothing less. Nearly all statements of fact are well sourced and verifiable. There is the most bare minimum usage of anonymous sources. That is journalistic excellence.

Consider their articles today. For instance the first non-opinion article I received when searching specifically for their site and Trump Russia was this [2]. The following 7 statements are the leads to 7 different paragraphs in that story.

- "The tactics reflect some of the hard-charging — and polarizing — personalities of Mr. Mueller’s team"

- "“They seem to be pursuing this more aggressively, taking a much harder line, than you’d expect to see in a typical white-collar case,”"

- "“They are setting a tone. It’s important early on to strike terror in the hearts of people in Washington, or else you will be rolled,”"

- "The moves against Mr. Manafort are just a glimpse of the aggressive tactics used by Mr. Mueller and his team of prosecutors "

- "The tactics reflect some of the hard-charging — and polarizing — personalities of Mr. Mueller’s team"

- "Admirers of Andrew Weissmann, one of the team’s senior prosecutors, describe him as relentless and uncompromising"

- "Some lawyers defending people who have been caught up in Mr. Mueller’s investigation privately complain that the special counsel’s team is unwilling to engage in the usual back-and-forth"

The piece reads like a trailer for a new low brow crime TV show. There's practically 0 valuable information, but it creates drama and starts building up characters to get readers ready for the next exciting entry. If you didn't get it - this prosecutor, he's a serious hardass - wow! Isn't that incredible!? In case you somehow missed it, they also added a picture of him looking like a hardass with the caption: "Robert S. Mueller III, a former F.B.I director, is known to dislike meandering investigations that languish for years." What a cowboy! The sheriff is in town boys!

It's sad that we now find this sort of journalism acceptable. And it's certainly not the reporters' doing it. That article carries no less than 3 names on the byline with 3 contributing reporters as well. It's like blaming developers for a shoddy piece of software. They create it no doubt, but the conditions and direction of which they are operating within are outside of their control so long as they continue to retain their employment there. That Watergate story was phenomenally interesting and informative, but it wouldn't hit the lowest common denominator. For that you need that emotional attachment - the characters, the story, the sensationalism. And so that is what the NYTimes today delivers.

I hope that the NYTimes new paywall push is a resounding success. So long as they are a slave to clicks, their quality will continue to deteriorate.

[1] - http://www.nytimes.com/1972/11/01/archives/the-watergate-mys...

[2] - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/18/us/politics/mueller-russi...

0 comments

matt40778y ago

This seems to just be examples of two different styles. I can't help but notice that the Watergate article would probably get ripped to shreds by today's critics on the internet: it makes judicious use of unnamed sources, it includes a lot of hearsay and speculation, and even the title ("Mystery") would today be construed to be a partisan attack.

Here's a different story on Mueller from todays NYT, which I believe is much closer in style to the Watergate article: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/26/us/politics/mueller-russi...

indubitableOP8y ago

Look at what the article is doing. Let me ask you a few questions that would seem relevant to the bill itself:

- How many members are on the senate judiciary committee? How many have stated they would vote for the 1st bill? How many have stated they would vote for the second bill?

- How often do bills that leave committee become law?

- Why, specifically, are the lawmakers sponsoring the bills uncertain if their legislation would end up on the senate floor?

- Why do the senators feel that these are bills that Trump would not veto (or do they feel they can achieve a veto overriding supermajority)?

- What, specifically, are the constitutional issues these bills face?

Very basic questions I think that all seem like they'd provide critical insight to what's going on. Most are completely ignored, or answered in the most unbelievably lazy ways possible. For instance the final paragraph actually mentions a concern that these bills could simply be vetoed by the president. The final sentence: "Other legal scholars disagreed." So is the NYTimes suggesting that legal scholars are saying Trump can't veto these bills? That's certainly what they seem to be implying. That is completely incorrect and certainly deserves vastly more than a 4 word sentence.

The rest of the article back to the theme of character building, drama, and salaciousness. I may have no clue what's going on, but did you know that some politician on the council just said 'They have concern about the president's respect for the law'? That quote is also a misleading nonsequitor. The entire point of this is that it would be completely lawful and legal for Trump to dismiss the investigator. The committee's goal seems to be to try to change the law to prevent this. I would add that quote was not only within the article itself, but also attached to an image as well. Again, character building and drama.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse