James Fallows Says That the Washington Post Has Bet Its Reputation on a Losing Card
A good piece by Jim Fallows. I do disagree with two of his points: First, I do not think that the Washington Post is "trying their best in difficult conditions."
Fallows:
They could study this in journalism schools: NYT v WaPo on climate emails: I am trying to avoid gratuitous NYT/WaPo comparisons, because like all publications they are trying their best in difficult conditions. I subscribe to both and wish them both well. But their respective front-page stories on the same subject -- two days ago in the Post, and this morning in the NYT -- present a very interesting contrast. Both stories are about the leaked/stolen emails from the University of East Anglia....
The two stories are worth reading in full, and side-by-side.... A very frequent criticism of the mainstream press is that reporters are hesitant to say, "This is true, and that is false." Instead, they usually feel safest in the "critics contend" zone.... Eg, "Critics contend that the health-care reform bill will require the elderly to face 'death panels'; Administration officials disagree."
In this case one big-time paper, the Post, sticks with "critics contend," while the other presents a contrast between "decades of peer-reviewed science" and politically-motivated opposition. Moreover, the NYT presents the controversy as something that might get in the way of deliberations in Copenhagen; while the Post presents it as a scandal in which "wonky" emails may not constitute "proof" that climate change is a "lie or a swindle" but still justify introducing "lie" and "swindle" as possibilities....
[T]he papers are betting their reputations with these articles. The Times, that climate change is simply a matter of science versus ignorance; the Post, that this is best treated as another "-Gate" style flap where it's hard to get to the bottom of the story. While I don't claim to be a climate expert, the overwhelming balance of what I've read convinces me that the Times's approach is right...
Second, I don't think that the Washington Post is betting its reputation: I don't think it has a reputation to bet.
Why oh why can't we have a better press corps?
