Signs of the Time
So Time Magazine has gone through a redesign. But along with the redesign, they’ve also changed their editorial policy, and in very interesting ways.
I’ve been reading Time since I was a kid. Living overseas, it was always an interesting experience. For one, the domestic issue of the magazine is radically different from the international edition, which was far more sober, considered, and content-full. Of course, on that level it competed with Newsweek (which was somehow more sober and considered) and The Economist (which is and was the epitome of sober and considered).
What I see in the redesign, however, is a move away from sober. Instead, there’s clearly a huge response to the Internet. The letters column is called “Inbox,” which of course today suggests electronic mail more than snail mail. The “ten questions” section now uses reader-submitted questions instead of ones provided by a professional reporter. But most importantly, the writers who formerly worked to provide balanced reporting and factual content are now editorializing in virtually every article. Basically, there’s a lot more analysis in the news, rather than just reportage.
To me, this is an inevitable and probably wise move on Time’s part. The facts can be gotten from a lot of places on the Net, and every single one of them will be filtering them in some fashion. What calls out to an audience today is a voice. It doesn’t have to be an ideologically-inspired voice either — frankly, I’d rather hear from an even-handed and pragmatic voice than yet another shrill ideologue on either side of the political spectrum.
The days of letting facts be reported without comment seems to be dwindling… and while it opens up lots of questions about whether we’ll ever see truly unbiased reporting, it does mean that perhaps less facts will pass by unexamined. And that would be a good thing.
27 Responses to “Signs of the Time”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Pleased to see other personalities thinking about the nature of game journalism, and Slashdot Games’ and MMOG Nation’s Michael Zenke has just written an extremely interesting piece on ‘opinions’ and the game press, citing a Raph Koster piece about Time Magazine’s redesign. Specifically, Koster suggests: “The days of letting facts be reported without comment seems to be dwindling… and while it opens up lots of questions about whether we’ll ever see truly unbiased reporting, it does
that people latch on to magnetic voices. In a day when there are more voices than ever, people have far more access to information (and opinion) than they have ever had in all of history. By just about any metric, I’d surmise we are a lot better off. https://www.raphkoster.com/2007/04/04/signs-of-the-time/#comment-120759 Nice. True. Golden Age Syndrome strikes again! (And is summarily slain.)
It’s obvious that I’m not the only one trying to not get trapped into MMO-think or game-think. Danc is studying product development methodologies that aren’t even from software development, let alone games. Raph spends almost as much time talking about recent web developments and broader media topics as he does MMOs. I suspect that one reason these two express their thoughts so cogently is this drive toward diversification. It allows them to see the same issues everyone else sees, but
Your use of the word analysis suggests ‘providing meaning’. It may be inevitable and wise but I’m saddened by an increase in the provision of meaning by others [in this case the writers] since I can’t help but think it goes along with a decrease in people doing it themselves.
It wasn’t long ago that you took me to task about an uncritical giving consumers what they want since that route led to ‘bread & circuses’ [I thought about that a lot 😉 ] It may be that audiences today cry out for a voice. Do they cry out for even-handed and pragmatic voices?
I tend to think that the internet is more a cacophony of opinions rather than facts. Most of the opinions haven’t developed into voices. What makes it a voice, might be a kind of opinion leadership. So I think, most people always prefer voice over facts, but facts over opinions. So something must overcome the stage where its just one opinion of someone. The Times provides this at least with its name, anyway.
Good lord, I’m not sure I could disagree more. How is the average person supposed to know what voices to trust? Part of the problem in today’s society is that media consumers latch on to magnetic voices and start believing everything they say rather than thinking for themselves.
Cable news is a joke. The FCC only cares about censoring smut, not monitoring fairness.
The media needs its Murrows, those select individuals who meticulously stick to the facts. The voice of true objectivity is often the most valuable voice of all.
“even-handed and pragmatic” just means someone who is better at hiding their bias.
Yes, Bias will creep in eventually if it’s not there yet. But when people start editorializing, it’s pretty hard to not include bias since it is after all, their opinion.
I don’t know about you, but I have to dig quite a bit to actually find all the facts. And I never do know if I have them all, since I always, always, find more as I go.
Perhaps I am a bit more cynical than some of you! My studies of history tell me that
– people have always had trouble ascertaining the facts (and knowing what media to trust!)
– the media has rarely been without advocacy and bias
– rarely has there been a population that delighted, as a whole, in figuring it all out themselves.
It has always been hard to find all the facts. For that matter, facts often have biases of their own: mere factual accuracy is often far less important than understanding of how facts fit together.
I guess I have trouble seeinghow “part of the problem today” is that people latch on to magnetic voices. In a day when there are more voices than ever, people have far more access to information (and opinion) than they have ever had in all of history. By just about any metric, I’d surmise we are a lot better off.
@ Moorguard: Murrow wasn’t politically biased. At all.
To the rest:
Moving past the sarcasm, journalism (of all mediums) has and always will be tainted by opinion – whether political or otherwise. It’s just coming under more scrutiny.
Journalists haven’t reporting the news for a loooong time. Journalists have been in the business of making the news.
The difference in media bias (whether conservative or liberal) is perception. As a conservative, I don’t notice Fox’s right of center leanings as much because I agree with it and it doesn’t immediately STAND OUT to me. However, I DO notice CNN, MSNBC, NYT, and others outright left of center leanings because it’s in opposition to my accepted perceived ‘norm‘.
The dangers exist in people taking information outlets such as wikipedia as gosphel; as fact. And it’s becoming more and more common every day.
You know, a friend of mine worked for The Economist for a time, I went to visit him once, and had lunch with a few people he worked with, given the amount they drank I would hardly consider them sober. 🙂
As to Time, its trying to distance itself from an “old media” image and stay current. Im not sure doing that at the cost of factual reporting is a good idea, but OTOH people do want to hear real voices, from real people.
I think perhaps a good mix of old school journalism and maybe editorilization based on subject matter might be a good tact to take. Else they risk alienating thier customer base while chasing after new readers.
In fact a mixed style might be best to ease the older readers into the new paradyme.
Either way you cant really fault them at least they’re doing SOMETHING which is more than could be said about other magazines.
PS: Did you notice recetly that the Newspaper for Newspapers went out of business? Due in part to unsustainability…every shift has its casualties I suppose, sadly some of the old school journo’s were good reads, I still miss Herb Caen’s stuff in the SF Chron. 🙁
@Wade
Wikipedia has been shown to be statistically more reliable, and more accurate than the Britannica when an entry is considered “complete”. Although everyones level of required accuracy is variable.
Honestly “factional reporting” was always a farse. Everybody has a natural slant to how they view things, and as hard as they can try there’s always at least a little bias in how they report something.
Besides, readers tend to view things they believe with as factual, and things they disagree with as biased. Take the NY Times. Many liberals view it as a bastion of unbiased reporting. While conservatives see a paper who’s front page has been corrupted by its editorial views.
I think we’re in a transition period where folks are getting more and more of their news from sites and outlets that align with their personal views. Take television news. A certain crowd watchs Fox News, which has a certain slant to their coverage. Another CNN. And another MSNBC. None of these channels are unbiased, but instead focus on a segment of the population and tailor their broadcast to those.
/derail
According to wikipedia, the American Civil War was
a major war between the United States (the “Union”) and eleven Southern slave states which declared that they had a right to secession and formed the Confederate States of America, led by President Jefferson Davis. The Union, led by President Abraham Lincoln and the Republican Party, opposed the expansion of slavery into territories owned by the United States and rejected any right of secession. Fighting commenced on April 12, 1861, when Confederate forces attacked a United States (federal) military installation at Fort Sumter in South Carolina.
Notice how ‘they‘ say it was ‘slave states‘, and ‘opposed the expansion of slavery‘ was the root of the Civil War?
That the Civil War started because of ‘slavery’ is one of the more egregious MYTHS being taught by (liberally biased (heh)) teachers, even today. It’s bad information being taught over and over again. And wikipedia directly contributes to it.
[…] Danuser yesterday commented on Raph Koster’s Signs of the Time, “Cable news is a joke. The FCC only cares about censoring smut, not monitoring […]
“Honestly “factional reporting” was always a farse.”
I have to disagree. While choices as to which facts to show and which to not show certainly matter it’s a bit much to deny that it’s possible to present non-editorial information. Or do you believe that all video feeds have been photoshopped?
No, it’s not. *ahem*
Absolute objectivity is as much a myth as absolute subjectivity.
>>I don’t notice Fox’s right of center leanings
Good lord. I’m gonna have some fun and go straight for the Godwin on that one:
“I didn’t notice Hitler’s anti-Jew leanings…”
🙂
Seriously now, the players in the US media space need to get over themselves and wear their ideological badges (whichever badges they happen to be) on their sleeves like the rest of the world’s media.
This transparent (from the outside) pretense at even-handedness has lasted far too long and done far too much damage.
Yeah I always enjoyed time as a kid up until now – sometimes we’re all afraid of change – even if they messed with their editorials. :/
@Wade
OK I’ll take the bait but I’m not drinking the kool-aid.
/Derail on
Actual quote as of this AM:
The American Civil War (1861–1865) was a major war between the United States (the “Union”) and eleven Southern slave states that declared their states’ rights to secession and formed the Confederate States of America,
The beauty of dynamic editing…..
Now there are Professors who are more knowledgable and spend thier entire lives debating the prime cause of the civil war. So I wont go down that road because it’s just subjective opinion. Kind of like saying something is a MYTH, or that teachers are inherantly liberally biased.
But these subjective opinions and inaccuracies are tought and repeated over and over, in the dictionary, on TV, in the Papers, encyclopedias and um….wikipedia. Because human knowledge and perception of events is faulty.
So therefore the best we can hope for is a relative accuracy as objective as possible right? However everyones standard of accuracy, like thier subjective opinion, knowledge, and perception is variable, which leaves “objective” and in this case we mean facts.
And our example being the Civil War, and a quote from wikipedia merely demonstrates that a) the civil war happened, b) for some reason c) on a certain date d) for reasons precedent to the actual start of the conflict e) which we think we might know, but are subjective according to our view.
Notice I said a “complete entry”, what that means is “according to our knowledge to date” and you’ll find that subjects like the “civil war” are far different than say “Shrodingers Cat”. Which posits the mere observence can change the outcome….much like changing They to Thier for instance :).
Its hard to say how these things get propagated, they’s and thier’s, and the possible killing of cats, or not (or maybe the cat didnt exist?).
That we can distinguish between subjective and objective only proves we can distinguish between something thats probably not true and mostly not true.
The (beauty) problem of humans is decoherence. Subjectivity and objectivity are the mechanisms we developed early on to deal with a world where the Cat’s used to eat us and a reality we dont really understand even now that the tables have been turned. 🙂
/Derail off
OTOH as Morgan simply stated:
Except both exist, one exists, or perhaps neither of them exist.
But dont blame me, blame the friggin’ Cat 🙂
I’m not saying there was some perfect era in journalism where you could implicitly trust that everything reported in the news was going to be fair and accurate. But at least there was a tangible fear of the FCC that kept most mass media outlets wary of spinning out of control.
Today,there is no fear. In fact, extremism is encouraged by the system and is an absolute must to stand out from the crowd of cable and website news.
To think that having more voices means that most people will somehow figure the facts out from the fiction seems ludicrous to me at best and dangerous at worst.
I’m against governmental regulation of the media in just about every way, but there needs to be some accountability other than ratings and advertiser dollars. There needs to be places that the average person can go and be able to count on objectivity without needing to piece together every important news story on their own.
I remember when Harper changed its format about 20 years ago was it? It was a kind of precursor of the Internet. I’m fairly confident that it changed to that shorter-attention-span and list-based presentation BEFORE there was widespread use of the Internet and that in its way, they helped shape the mentality of how things were put on the Internet.
I mean, there’s nothing to say that the Internet couldn’t have been like Samual Pepys Diary and the Manhattan yellow pages.
But instead, it was all about these nerds posting these really short and pointless “weblogs”. We all couldn’t wait until all that stuff fell off the pages and went into the back end where it belonged.
Perhaps Raph remembers the Harper transition. I remember being hugely irritated by it, because I felt they are morphing to fit people’s shrinking attention spans instead of going the distance to try to hold them.
So now Time, which was always biased and always biased with the Strobe Talbot sort of liberal soft-on-Moscow kind of world view, is now forthrightly so. Editorializing isn’t analysis, tho, Raph, it’s just putting opinion in pieces that we thought were supposed to be factually reported out, chiefly by finding the 4-5 different viewspoints on each story and representing them *so the reader could form his own judgements*.
Depriving the reader of the ability to form his own judgements by having the points of view of all sides in a conflict or all narrators in a story is a huge disservice. It means the dumbing down of the world.
[…] accountability and accuracy in the media. So when I read the following line by Raph Koster in his recent observations on changes to Time, I got kinda fired […]
[…] made a statement in a post on his site, saying: The days of letting facts be reported without comment seems to be […]
[…] just written an extremely interesting piece on ‘opinions’ and the game press, citing a Raph Koster piece about Time Magazine’s […]
[…] Zenke has just written an extremely interesting piece on ‘opinions’ and the game press, citing a Raph Koster piece about Time Magazine’s […]
[…] pass this up. I’ll be brief.Raph has made this simple – and brilliant – statement in regards to the state of the new media on his official website:The days of letting facts be reported without comment seems to be […]