I do not believe that the NYT sucks especially hard when compared to most newspapers.
As some of you already know, I do a bit of 'pro-bono' headhunting which is basically to identify slots for interns where none existed before, and try and put an intern into them.
So, I was talking to the grossly overworked section editor of a publication most here would recognise. They needed an intern, someone who knew stuff ,but was relatively cheap, and for whom they had budget.
Flat refusal.
I gently probed, and it turned out that a veteran section editor with 15 years experience and who actually know about the stuff they were writing, was terrified that I'd put in an inter to their group. Their view was that management would see that words (but not very good ones) could be written by someone who was paid one third as much. This was a rational fear, I've seen stuff like this.
That's not because the web is shafting print journalism, because even successful web-only sites pay really badly, in real terms decreasing, and that was true before the recession, got to be worse now.
Fact is that the people who run most news outlets want space filled as cheaply as possible, and no 'trouble'. That's why most US newspapers, of any persuasion, not just 'leftist' ones like the NYT don't refer to US government torture by that name, using euphemisms for practices that when carried out by the Japs in WWII resulted in the execution of those people by the US for torture. That's why there are so many environment stories, not because it's important, but because lots of young journos will write shit for free and for 'balance' the energy firms will write copy for you claiming it's a big lie.
That sounds cynical, right ?
OK, apply this test to yourself. Would you switch newspaper if (say) 2-3 journos switched where their words appeared ?
No?
Thought not.
