The purpose of this new unit is to devote more prominent coverage to a topic that has become increasingly newsworthy in recent years. The idea is that reporters will bring their own area of expertise to write more "big-thought" environment articles that will make it onto the front page, according to Erica Goode, the new environment editor.
This new approach will employ investigative work and the use of storytelling techniques to decipher a complex, multifaceted topic for the reading public.
The article goes on to say that the Times's arrangement is progressive for its ability to probe into the variety of ways a single environmental issue can affect daily life. Goode says that a recent story about an ultra-efficient home was an example of a piece that generated tremendous interest while combining information from the areas of science, business, home and lifestyle.
Whether or not this move was a disguised effort to cut costs, I applaud the Times for taking a responsible approach to an issue that many have dismissed as unimportant. When any issue can be supported by scientific or technological information, it seems to gain credibility in the minds of many readers. And who better to report on specific statistical information than reporters with expertise in each field?
I think that environmental articles will become more interesting and informative with a group of reporters responsible for content rather than a single source. If this approach proves to be effective, perhaps newspapers will use it to address the coverage of other pressing subjects.
Do you think the Times was being innovative in coming up with this "group approach" to reporting, or do you think the organization just wanted to consolidate and cut costs?
A fantastic idea. Not only did the media find a way to cut costs, they found a way to include science, the environment, business, and the types of lifestyles americans lead. Yes i do believe that the media did it to cut costs (especially compaired to the previous article on this blog) but no matter the reason, the outcome is what matters. Putting their own reporters into these stories brings passion out in the stories they tell it also provides scientific or technological proof. When a story can be credited and back by a scientific source it makes it all that more interesting to read. Kudos to the media for "killing to birds with one stone", and making some reporters truly enjoy their job.
ReplyDeletei love the idea of getting the best workers and best writers with the most enthusiasm to the job. if they did for eveyr aspect of writing and mass media, we would be given information from people that love to what they do, and the media would do nothing but be successful. i know that cutting cost was a major factor in this story, but what i got out of it is that the stories written by this group will be very well researched by the science group and very well written. it is definitly a positive move and i am very excited to wait and to read what they produce.
ReplyDeleteI can't wait to find out what they will write about next. We need to focus on the environment more than we do now. When science is talked about in our newspapers, it brings a fresh approach from our daily drag of news such as current events that make us depressed and upset. I think that the New York Times wanted to do both which will bring in new readers and hopefully hook them with huge, juicy stories in the newspapers. Good story. I can't wait to read more of these.
ReplyDelete