For a long time, many large US newspapers have had a fundamental and critical internal inconsistency:
1. They proclaim the intention to report on all the relevant news with as little subjective bias as reasonably possible.
2. They make money through advertisements and subscriptions, the amount of which is proportional to the magnitude of their readership.
Maximizing point 2 above competes with netflix, books, movies, etc... anything on which Americans spend their disposable time. This leads newspapers to continue to have crosswords, comics, wordle, etc. and opinion/editorial pages.
Opinion and editorial pages are not relevant news with little subjective bias.
> They proclaim the intention to report on all the relevant news with as little subjective bias as reasonably possible.
I don't think that's ever been the case.
> Opinion and editorial pages are not relevant news with little subjective bias.
Even if it were somehow possible to produce a piece of reporting totally devoid of subjectivity, it wouldn't be interesting and no one would care, because most people aren't subject matter experts in the area of whatever the piece is about.
That's the value provided by expert editorialists, which Krugman was: they frame events in a meaningful way, be it historical, personal, based on experience in whatever field, or with other meaningful comparisons. Yes, such framing is necessarily subjective, but it adds value. Subjectivity doesn't imply corruption.
> > They proclaim the intention to report on all the relevant news with as little subjective bias as reasonably possible.
>
> I don't think that's ever been the case.
>
> > Opinion and editorial pages are not relevant news with little subjective bias.
>
> Even if it were somehow possible to produce a piece of reporting totally devoid of subjectivity, it wouldn't be interesting and no one would care, because most people aren't subject matter experts in the area of whatever the piece is about.
>
> That's the value provided by expert editorialists, which Krugman was: they frame events in a meaningful way, be it historical, personal, based on experience in whatever field, or with other meaningful comparisons. Yes, such framing is necessarily subjective, but it adds value. Subjectivity doesn't imply corruption.
A bit from left field. So, framing your idea with AI. What can we expect when we look at biases in our selves?
You and the New York Times Company don't agree on what the point of newspapers are. These are always sorta BS but you can just Google their mission statement if you want to know what they think their purpose is.
1. They proclaim the intention to report on all the relevant news with as little subjective bias as reasonably possible.
2. They make money through advertisements and subscriptions, the amount of which is proportional to the magnitude of their readership.
Maximizing point 2 above competes with netflix, books, movies, etc... anything on which Americans spend their disposable time. This leads newspapers to continue to have crosswords, comics, wordle, etc. and opinion/editorial pages.
Opinion and editorial pages are not relevant news with little subjective bias.