I would like to know that when I read the paper in the morning, it's telling me something that actually happened, and I think the vast majority of journalists want the same thing.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
I think, though, that people will read into a reporter's story a bias that they want to see in a reporter.
People are worried about what's going to happen to journalism - and they should be. Every day, the blogosphere is getting better and print media is getting worse; you have to be an idiot not to see that.
God, newspapers have been making up stories forever. This kind of trifling and fooling around is not a function of the New Journalism.
The things journalists should pay attention to are the issues the political leadership agrees on, rather than to their supposed antagonisms.
We now assume that when people turn on the evening news, they basically already know what the news is. They've heard it on the radio. They've seen it on the Internet. They've seen it on one of the cable companies. So that makes our job a bit different.
From the beginning on, newspapers have prospered for one reason: giving readers the news that they want.
It is grievous to read the papers in most respects, I agree. More and more I skim the headlines only, for one can be sure what is carried beneath them quite automatically, if one has long been a reader of the press journalism.
The Congressional leaders set the agenda for journalism; it's not the other way around.
The papers are only going to show what they want the readers to see. It's all propaganda, to be honest.
People can get their news any way they want. What I love about what's happened is that there are so many different avenues, there are so many different outlets, so many different ways to debate and discuss and to inquire about any given news story.