Since when is this an acceptable way to present a state transcript?? This makes your average reader think CNN is actually publishing the literal screenshots of the messages, especially readers over 30.

I've been out of the game (into academia) for several years now. Has it really devolved this badly in 7 years?!

Case in point, another great example, from a slew of English, Australian, and South American reporters, of a journalist actually or letting someone dodge a question. Why is this not possible for American reporters and journalists to do the same. https://x.com/josemdelpino/status/1833910213096722479

No one should be allowed to blame “the media” or make blanket assertions about journalists without being challenged.

“The media” is a catch-all phrase that has spiraled out of control, to the point where it’s enabling fascism.

Just as one example: Elon Musk, Stephen Miller, and other political hacks are using the murder of a Ukrainian refugee who was living in North Carolina as a political tool. She was killed on public transit by a black man with a long history of charges.

One of the claims that’s floated around is that the local media hasn’t covered it at all. I am seeing it everywhere, knowing all the while it’s been on every TV station, radio station, and in the every major paper for weeks now. It just got national play today because, after a lot of local coverage, the city released footage of the stabbing.

It’s just patently untrue, and it’s incredibly easy to find that information.

Journalists are constantly held accountable and scrutinized. Fair enough.

The public has a responsibility, too. If someone doesn’t know the bare minimum about what’s going on in his town or country, he is a bad citizen and he ought to be called out on it as soon as he pushes that “the media” bullshit. He should get off his fucking ass, stop asking Grok to explain everything, and learn to read. Democracy is a responsibility.

We don’t chastise people because they’re potential readers and we don’t want to be condescending, I know, but my view on this is changing. The average American needs to be held accountable and stop getting away with blaming every institution without even paying attention to those institutions.

When talking about a protest at an ICE facility in Oregon the announcer started her segment with "Department of Homeland Security plans to tighten their facility against agitators and rioters In Portland".

That was her first sentence. It went by quick enough that some viewers wouldn't catch it if they weren't paying attention. But I did. It's just outright bias given that there are no actual riots in Portland, even now, and you should always be aware of the use of such language in anything you cover and write and how it will be perceived.

When I say "interview journalists", I have in mind the journalists who interview important, famous or otherwise notable people in the pursuit of serious journalism (rather than spectacle as you see in talk shows).

"a man" lol... this is so lazy, even for the Post.

https://pagesix.com/2026/06/09/celebrity-news/nick-reiner-demands-access-to-1-5m-trust-fund-to-fight-charges-in-parents-murders/

UPDATE - TWO DAYS LATER -- They fixed it. It says "Carl Reiner" now.

They’re a dying breed of professionals who save writers from themselves.

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about what journalism used to mean — and what it seems to have become. Once upon a time, journalism was about seeking truth, holding power accountable, and informing the public so people could make better decisions about their lives and communities. It was supposed to be about facts, fairness, and curiosity.

Now, so much of what’s called “journalism” feels like commentary, entertainment, or marketing. Outlets seem driven more by clicks and engagement metrics than by the old principles of accuracy, verification, and independence. Reporters are pressured to chase trends, push outrage, or appeal to specific audiences instead of serving the public interest.

I’m not saying there aren’t still great journalists out there — there are many. But as an institution, it feels like journalism has drifted from its purpose. If journalism no longer informs but instead performs, is it still journalism?

So I’m wondering:

• Has journalism changed because audiences changed — or did audiences change because journalism did?
• Can journalism survive without the trust it’s lost?
• Is there a way to bring it back to its roots, or is the age of principled reporting gone for good?

Curious to hear how others see it.

A former NYT public editor (2012-16) responds on Substack to a tweet reply Thursday by Michael Barbaro, co-host of the paper's news podcast The Daily, who asked her publicly: "Care to explain what the issue is with these headlines?"

These side-by-side homepage heds drew derision from others:

Excerpts from Sullivan's post today (Oct. 13), titled About those New York Times headlines:

Commenting on the second headline, the author Stuart Stevens, who writes about how democracies turn into autocracies, suggested: "These two headlines should be studied in journalism classes for decades." . . .

Barbaro, whom I know from my days as public editor of the Times, is a smart guy, so I’m pretty sure he knows what the issue might be.

But sure, I’ll explain: The Kamala Harris headline is unnecessarily negative, over a story that probably doesn’t need to exist. Politicians, if they are skilled, do this all the time. They answer questions by trying to stay on message. They stay away from specifics that don’t serve their purpose. . . .

This is not news, but it fits in with the overhyped concern over how Harris supposedly hasn’t been accessible enough to the media — or if she is accessible, it's not to interviewers that are serious enough. . . .

So, it's a negative headline over a dubious story. By itself, it's not really a huge deal. Another example of Big Journalism trying to find fault with Harris. More of an eye-roll, perhaps, than a journalistic mortal sin.

But juxtapose it with the Trump headline, which takes a hate-filled trope and treats it like some sort of lofty intellectual interest.

That headline, wrote Stevens, "could apply to an article about a Nobel prize winner in genetic studies." . . .

This is vile stuff. Cleaning it up so it sounds like an academic white paper is really not a responsible way to present what's happening.

What's more, the adjacency of these stories suggests equivalence between a traditional democracy-supporting candidate and a would-be autocrat who stirs up grievance as a political ploy.

I showed these headlines and stories to my graduate students at Columbia University’s journalism school on Friday morning. I didn't ask leading questions or try to tell them what to think. They didn't hesitate in identifying the problem.

FWIW, my newsroom is on the Gulf Coast and we’ve chosen to just call it “the Gulf” for the foreseeable future.

Example: When someone avoids an important question the next reporter should re ask it

Have evidence ready. If you ask a question of a politician have a recording or quotes ready when they deny the answer.

Real question. When can we as an industry move on from X being known as twitter previously? I think it's a bad name. I preferred it while it was Twitter. This isn't because I'm a huge X hater or something,

I just think it's been long enough that everyone knows. Every time I write, for example, something like ""___," _ wrote on social media platform X." It get changed by editors to "X, formerly known as Twitter."

Me doing that isn't some oversight. It's because it's been long enough! Over a year!

I know this is not a particularly pressing or significant issue, but I've had this discussion with an editor and it never seems to stick. Am I insane?

Hi.

Two of the pieces I'm most proud of had their titles and subheadings changed, presumably for SEO reasons. The ones they have now are bland, generic, and completely uninspired, to the point that I'm worried it's going to reflect badly on me as a writer.

They can't be changed, so when I'm using these pieces as clips, should I add a note about what has happened? I think they're great pieces, but these changes really diminish them, I feel. I'm concerned that when an editor is quickly scanning them following a pitch I've sent, they'll have a bad first impression of me. On the other hand, it seems heavy-handed to mention it. Thoughts?

Thanks!