The New York Times still has the moniker: All the news that’s fit to print. Yet, over time, the type of news and the reaction to it in comments tends to align more with an editorial bent than just evenhandedly covering the news in general. Take the recent news about Australia’s vote on carbon taxes. This major no vote should have gotten a lot of media attention over the past few days… but it hasn’t at all. So, the new moniker seems to be “All the news that fits my point of view.”
Of course, we have had bigger stories that dominate the media right now. The commercial jet liner that was lost and the escalating tensions in the Middle East. I have been wondering when the big news about Australia’s decision to kill a carbon tax was going to get more attention.
It was really interesting to see just how differently the NewYork Times and the Wall Street Journal were in reporting the recent turnabout in environmental policy in Australia. Take a look at each news article and then take a close look at the comments to them. It is hard to reconcile them as a commentary for the United States. Views could hardly be more different.
Wall Street Journal:
http://online.wsj.com/articles/australia-repeals-carbon-tax-1405560964
New York Times:
So, here we are. These are tough questions and we really do need to move past rock throwing. Do you see any sense of dialogue? Can you hear any humility in the tone? Not hardly.
I would expect the news agencies to publish all the news that’s fit to be published … nothing less and nothing more. Apparently, it is all the news that’s going to fit with getting my readership up.