New York Times Ombudsman Warns Against Opinion/News Mix

Arthur Brisbane, the new New York Times ombudsman, did not waste time jumping into one of the stickiest issues facing the newspaper: claims of opinionated news.

In just his third column as ombudsman, Brisbane points out that many readers are already taking issue with how the paper presents opinion pieces outside of the Op-Ed and editorial pages:

The morphing of news has stuck in some readers' craw for a long time, and all three of The Times's previous public editors dealt with the issue. But I believe the phenomenon is accelerating and has the potential to redefine the newspaper.

It's not that editors have decided to abandon the traditional virtues of objective journalism. But the Times news pages increasingly are home to "voices," not merely reportage, as editors commission work bearing the author's distinctive point of view. And it is happening during the clamor of the Internet age, when such voices are the only ones that seem to rise above the din.

He later adds:

Indeed, it is evident that The Times sees the rise of interpretive material as desirable and manageable. To help readers with this, it offers the online "Readers' Guide."

"In its news pages," the guide says, "The Times presents both straightforward news coverage and other journalistic forms that provide additional perspective on events."

The "Man in the News" form, it says, is "not primarily analytical but highlights aspects of the subject's background and career that shed light ... "

While the "Reporter's Notebook" is busy "supplementing coverage." And the "Memo" is a "reflective article."

The "Journal," by contrast, is a "sharply drawn feature ... closely observed and stylishly written." (Where do I look for the grossly observed and unfashionably written stuff?)

The "News Analysis" form "draws heavily on the expertise of the writer."

In the end, however, Brisbane reluctantly gives into the wave of more opinion over news, but warns against it:

These narrow distinctions reflect the struggle to remain impartial while publishing more and more interpretive material. How to resolve this tension?

One path is to do a much better job of labeling the work -- and please don't bother with the fine distinctions. Call it commentary or call it opinion, but call it something that people can understand.

That, or abandon the sacred cloak of impartiality.

I vote for the former but concede that the latter may offer better traction in the opinion-gorged landscape of the future.