The New York Times...Revised

I chose to revise this post a bit because I felt like I didn’t really add anything to the conversation about why the New York Times is such a credible source of information. In this post I attempted to accurately talk about why the NY Times is a good source of news as well as add multiple statistics to my post to add accuracy.

Informative.  That’s the first thing that comes to mind—mostly because I really didn’t read the newspaper very often prior to taking this specific writing course.  The New York Times has been known to be a credible source of news.  However it has also been known to have a strong liberal bias. The New York Times has been a strong news present since 1851 and is one of the top news cites looked at in the U.S. It is ranked 31^st in the United States of top sites visited according to ‘Alexa-The Web Information Company.’ I’ve found that the NY Times has a pretty large audience—currently 447,327 sites have the NY times linked to their website.  Originally I was skeptical at the power the NY Times had on the American people, but I’ve found that a lot of people agree the NY Times is a very credible news source and one of the top sources visited. It’s estimated that about 16,355,042 Unique Visitors (individuals who visit the site at least once a month according to complete.com) visit the NY Times at least once a month.  And that statistic doesn’t even count the number of people that look at the NY Times multiple times a month or the people who read the hard copy.

 However I do not read the NY Times the traditional way.  I read it on NYTimes.com or on the app on my phone.  Although they report the same headlines, the way they are displayed couldn’t be more different.  A newspaper has only what is printed and usually on the front cover there is a huge photo to catch readers eyes.  On their website there are short blurbs on the main headlines and then click-able links that lead to the entire article as well as other links that are similar to the article’s topic.  Links to other websites have major appeal because they allow readers to continue reading more news. 

Trying to Take an Approach

            I found Harris’s definition of “Taking an Approach” to be a bit muddled and hard to follow.  I felt like in this chapter he was a bit scatterbrained about what taking an approach really meant.  I did draw from the chapter that he kind of saw it as not rewriting passages or ideas from a text but another writer’s mode or style of working.  I think he is suggesting that to be a proficient writer you can’t just rely on redoing what other writers have done, but you can use other writer’s style of writing. I think a good example of this can be found in artist movements like Renaissance, Baroque, Romanticism, Realism, Impressionism, Cubism, Expressionism, and Modernism…etc.  Pablo Picasso is well known for his abstract cubism paintings that sparked a new way to paint.  The other painters of that era didn’t just recreate one of Picasso’s paintings; instead they reinvented it and made it their own. This is also a good place I think Harris’s idea of “Reflexivity” fits in.  Like for many painters and writers, there is a sense of ‘self’ in whatever they are creating.  Although big websites like the New York Times and Business Insider can’t really reflect in their news articles, I do think they are reflective in what quotes they choose to print in their articles.  In that way the writer is making the news story his or her own.  From the style of the NY Times you can tell the writers are sticking to the style of the other writers of the Times, but they are also adding their own spin on topics.  I think this is a semi accurate example of how the NY Times is “Taking an Approach.”

The Daily Show and Countering

Harris’s definition of countering is “bringing a different set of interests to bear upon a subject, look to notice what others have not.  Your aim is not to refute what has been said before, to bring the discussion to an end, but to respond to prior views in ways that move the conversation in new directions” (56).  Although The Daily Show isn’t a blog I think it acts rather closely to one and does an excellent job of ‘countering’.  I like following/watching Jon Stewart for one the entertainment, but also because he talks about a lot about issues that newspapers cover, yet his show is more appealing and easier to understand way.  Stewart’s recent show on February 15, 2012 does a nice job in not only furthering the conversation on insider trading but also bringing a different set of interests to the conversation.  Originally 60 Minutes brings up how although for regular Americans can be prosecuted for using insider trading information in order to buy/sell stocks it is still legal for congress men and women to use their inside information in order to either help Hedge funds or to buy their own stocks.  The reason I think The Daily Show does a good job in countering is because he questions Congress when they say they want to pass a bill that hold Congress accountable like every other American.  I think Stewart furthers the conversation by first taking what 60 minutes has to say as well as countering Congress by sarcastically stating, “Oh right, it’s ridiculous to expect that Congress should be held under the same rules as regular Americans.”  I think this doesn’t just stop the conversation like most arguments do—it furthers the conversation by looking at another angle.  Stewart constantly tries to look at news stories from different angles without just blatantly putting down the opposing argument.

RE: RE: RE: Forwarding...

            Right from the beginning of Harris’s ‘Forwarding’ chapter I like his general concept of adding to a conversation.  I never really realized it but the reason you talk to other people is to add knowledge or wisdom to the discussion.  Of course there are times where the sole goal of making a comment is to end a conversation—but for the most part Harris says it is to push the conversation forward, “to say something new, something that seem to call for further talk and writing” (35-36).  That really is the perfect way to describe blogs.  The blog I’ve been following—Business Insider is made for people to add to the conversation, maybe not in the traditional sense but there is still that response to forward the conversation.  While browsing through Business Insider’s website you can find multiple ways to ‘forward’ the conversation.  Harris describes forwarding by using email as an example, “In the email program I use, these two functions are illustrated by opposing arrows: reply (ß) send your comment back to the sender; forward (à) directs them outward to other readers.  And these forwards can themselves be forwarded, to sometimes unexpected sites and publics—as anyone who has ever written an email post that seemed to take on a life of its own, found its way to unintended readers, can testify” (37).  Even I can testify to this type of treatment of my writing, aka Facebook.  There are tons of times where something posted on Facebook gets commented on and then reposted and added to and revised.  The same happens with Business Insider’s website, as far as I can tell the articles don’t get revised but they do get commented on often reposted on other websites.  I think this is exactly what Harris is referring to—in someway contributing to the conversation.  Recently I’ve been reading some of the comments posted on the main articles on BI and there are some very interesting comments that actually add to the conversation.  However on the other hand there are comments such as, “@BI all over the plase: Or in other words...The Cancer otherwise called OBAMA”  Or sarcastic rhetorical comments that really have no place in the conversation. That is one of Harris’s worries about forwarding, “In forwarding text, you begin to shift the focus of your readers away from what its author has to say and toward your own project” (38).  Honestly that really is an increasing problem—there often becomes a lot of opinion thrown into the conversation and thus it is altered.  Now in some aspect I’m sure that shifting the conversation can be beneficial, but I’m not entirely convinced that forwarding is all good.

Sharing the NYTimes

            Like any big company that’s trying to compete in today’s economy, it is vital to have a website that provides not only information about your company but also links to things that are relevant.  Originally The New York Times refused to create a NYTimes website—but as the times changed it became apparent that the only way to keep their business afloat was to make a website that projected their news stories.  The NYTimes does a good job in laying out their site basically the same as they do in their newspaper, the only real distinct difference is the links that each story have attached to it.  Under the main headlines and short blurbs about the article and then a link to the article as well other links about the story.  This is a good representation of a press-sphere—The NYTimes no longer is just reporting for our benefit.  They are reporting for us to not only read but to respond to.  Any article on the NYTimes website has links to Facebook, Twitter, Linkdin, as well as a way to email the article and a way to comment on the article.  Similar to what Jeff Jarvis wrote about creating a circular flow of news, is what the NYTimes has done. 

            Recently I’ve been following the website Business Insider—which really embodies the press-sphere.  On their homepage (unlike the NYT) readers can immediately long in through Facebook or Twitter in order to share articles.  Their website allows users to signup for emails and alerts and of course comment on the many articles they have posted.  On both the NYTimes website and on Business Insider there is audience participation.  Commenting, sharing, and linking to other websites creates a press-sphere that is focused around the reader; it’s a cycle of being informed and then sharing that information.

A Circular View of Information

The way we get information and news has completely changed.  According to Jeff Jarvis we no longer rely solely on the press to give us our daily dose of news.  The world has been changing along with the sources from which we receive information.  A Press-sphere is made up of not only the press (like in the old days) but it is also made up of companies, sources, data, government, archives, witnesses, and observers.  According to Jarvis a press-sphere calls for links to other sources in order to satisfy our need for news and information.  I completely agree with this way of understanding how the public gets their information.  No longer do we rely solely on what the press has to say.  There are a variety of websites that report on different news stories and that link up to site after site in order to expand the story. 

            I think the most complicated thing about Jarvis’ diagrams was the me-sphere.  I found it unusual to have a round about sort of information wheel.  He says that “news comes in and stories go out — text and photos come in and paper goes out.” Basically it is a whole circle of information, which is understandable since information flows so rapidly in our generation.  I was just mystified by the idea of a circular flow of information that is based around myself.  The flow of information doesn’t stop with one publication—the information gets shared, a video is made and posted on Facebook, which in turn gets kicked into blogs and talked about and shared until something else is produced.  It’s a crazy network of information that constantly overlaps and is intertwined.

Business Insider Close Up

The well know Business Insider website covers a variety of topics--ranging from Tech, Finance, Entertainment, sports, to Life.  There is a good amount of coverage on major news stories all categorized by their specific topic.  There is a very obvious business driven mindset that can be seen in most of the articles.  Even under topics like ‘Sports’ and ‘Entertainment’ it is clear that the writers of Business Insider want to make sure that all their articles in some way lead back to either the economy or something related to money.  Basically any article they write about either has a direct business mindset or is focused on how it affects your life.