Two years ago the New York Times decided to demarcate its contents typographically. “Straightforward news,” it explained, would be published in justified columns; opinion—be it a “memo,” an “appraisal,” a “journal,” or some other subjective form—would get ragged-right treatment.
Guess how they appeared.
Best of Chicago voting is live now. Vote for your favorites »
Being at heart a reporter rather than a pundit, I won’t presume to say why. I simply wish to observe, without suggesting a correlation, that Internet values are seeping into print journalism, and Internet values reward instant punditry, the more flamboyant the better. Simple, solid reporting is OK, but flamboyance is what attracts page hits, and page hits attract advertisers—enough of them, in a theoretical tomorrow, to keep journalism afloat.
I told her it was subliminal, a “hint of a hint” made by choosing a picture of Obama in which he seemed to be smirking. I lectured: “This kind of commercial making is such a highly refined art that commercials can be made containing suggestions only the press will be aware of.” These subtle suggestions put the press in a lose/lose quandary. Ignore them at the cost of not telling the full story, or report them and be accused by the commercial maker of reckless bias.
But it’s not too late—the election’s still almost two months off and the debates haven’t even begun yet. And although the people are clearly in less of a hurry to embrace revealed truths than the pundits believe they ought to be, I don’t think that necessarily means they’re turning into vegetables. Well, maybe they are—but there’s a serious lack of objective evidence.
“But when the other guy’s product travels halfway around the world while the goods we’re shipping are just pulling on their boots—maybe we’re putting ourselves at a competitive disadvantage.
“PAUL REVERE IS DEAD LADIES AND GENTLEMEN! So, why think boots when we could think sneakers?
