On Friday, my colleague Ryan wrote up what was wrong with the insta-coverage of Cramer v. Stewart (Last Thursday Night’s Edition), including what Ryan called the “superficial” take by New York Times TV critic Alessandra Stanley. For a thoughtful take by another TV critic, have a look at this blog post by Time’s James Poniewozik, who found the Stewart-on-Cramer interview “most fascinating as a discussion about how business journalism in particular and journalism in general are done in America,” and highlights “a few of Cramer’s responses” which he found “especially eye-opening, not just as they relate to business news but to problems that journalism has generally.” Worth a read.
04:26 PM - March 16, 2009
Time For One More Cramer/Stewart Analysis?
‘See you on the other side’ - Meet Jessica Lum, a terminally ill 25-year-old who chose to spend what little time she had practicing journalism
#Realtalk: This is the best moment to be in journalism - The old stuff isn’t coming back, but that’s okay
Streams of consciousness - Millennials expect a steady diet of quick-hit, social-media-mediated bits and bytes. What does that mean for journalism?
Sticking with the truth - How ‘balanced’ coverage helped sustain the bogus claim that childhood vaccines can cause autism
An ink-stained stretch - Can Aaron Kushner save the Orange County Register—and the newspaper industry?
“There are some lists that have helped Jews in the past, including, most notably, Schindler’s, but…”
We are all correct
“If you wouldn’t mind using another publication to advertise your infringement tool, we’d appreciate it”
“[A]s flagrant an assault on civil liberties as anything done by George W. Bush’s administration”
She replies she’s an atheist
Who Owns What
A report from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism
Questions and exercises for journalism students.