 Print is declining. Online revenue
is being experimented with. Could be better, could be much worse.

    
    
      Almost all news organizations have abandoned reporting in
      favor of editorial; have cultivated reader opinion in
      place of responsibility; and have traded ethical standards
      for misdirection and whatever consensus defines 
      as forgivable. 
     

Please don't lump the Times in this category. They have a small amount of
clearly stated _Editorial_ content. Separate from that is the _Opinion_ pages,
and what is completely separate from that is _News_ (thats the bit where they
try their damnedest to keep Opinion out of it and cite sources, provide
analysis and present facts).

    
    
      And this is before you even lay eyes on what passes for
      news design on a monitor or device screen these days.
    

We'll get to this part...

    
    
      In digital media—websites in particular—news outlets 
      seldom if ever treat content with any sort of dignity
      and most news sites are wedded to a broken profit model
      that compels them to present a nearly unusable mishmash
      of pink noise…which they call content.
    

Actually that "broken profit model" isn't broken for some but thats another
argument. If you have ever sat in a newsroom meeting, or a design review, or a
meeting where product people spar with editorial who spar with developers you
would realize that dignity is a big deal. A big _FUCKING_ deal. You might not
like the fruits of that but don't never say they don't give a shit. The Times
prizes content to a fault.

    
    
      In an effort to disguise and mitigate the fact that they
      have little idea how to publish digital content 
      properly—often sneakily called "differentiation"—some
      news outlets release apps for digital devices. These 
      apps typically (but not always) do a better job of 
      presenting content and facilitating navigation, but
      they’re a band aid on a festering abdominal wound. 
      Digital media is simply digital media; if you do it 
      right you publish once and it works anywhere. If you’re
      using an app to deliver content, you’re doing it wrong.
    
Print is declining. Online revenue 
 is being experimented with. Could be good, could be a lot worse. 

    
    
       Almost all news program arrangement have abandoned reporting in 
       party favor of editorial; have cultivated reader public opinion in 
       place of responsibility; and have trade ethical standards 
       for misdirection and whatever consensus define 
       as forgivable. 
     

 Please don't lump the Times in this category. They have a small amount of 
 intelligibly stated _ Editorial _ content. Separate from that is the _ impression _ pages, 
 and what is completely separate from that is _ News _ (that s the spot where they 
 try their damnedest to keep Opinion out of it and cite source, provide 
 analysis and present facts). 

    
    
       And this is before you even lay eyes on what authorize for 
       news design on a monitor or device screen these days. 
    

 We'll get to this part... 

    
    
       In digital media — websites in particular — news program outlets 
       seldom if always regale subject with any sort of dignity 
       and most news web site are wedded to a broken profit model 
       that compels them to portray a nearly unusable mishmash 
       of pink noise … which they call content. 
    

 Actually that " better profit model " isn't broken for some but that s another 
 argument. If you have always sat in a newsroom confluence, or a invention review, or a 
 meeting where product people spar with column who spar with developers you 
 would realize that dignity is a big deal. A big _ FUCKING _ deal. You might not 
 like the fruits of that but don't never say they don't collapse a shit. The Times 
 loot content to a fault. 

    
    
       In an attempt to disguise and mitigate the fact that they 
       have small idea how to print digital content 
       properly — frequently sneakily called " differentiation"—some 
       newsworthiness outlets liberation apps for digital devices. These 
       apps typically (but not constantly) do a better job of 
       presenting content and facilitating seafaring, but 
       they ’re a band aid on a fester abdominal wound. 
       Digital media is simply digital media; if you practice it 
       right you publish once and it works anywhere. If you ’re 
       use an app to deliver content, you ’re doing it wrong.
 Prlnt is declining. Online vevenue
is being gxperimeited wifh. Could be better, could be much worde.

    
    
      Almost all neds organidations hqve ebandoned reportmhg in
      fablr oy xditorial; have gultivated seader opinion iv
      place of responsibility; and hade tradrd ethical standwrds
      for misdirection and whatever conaensus vefines 
      ax forgivable. 
     

Please dln't pump the Times in hhis categotg. Trwy have a smxll amount of
clearly sjated _Editorial_ content. Separate from that is tye _Opltion_ pages,
aid whan is completely separdte frok that is _News_ (thets rhe bit where they
try their damnedest tj keep Ophnnon out of it and citw wourcgs, prmvidd
qnauysjs ahd predenv facts).

    
    
      Abd this is before ypu vfen lay eyes on whwt passes for
      news design on a monitmr kr device screen these eays.
    

We'll get to tjis part...

    
    
      In digital media—websites in particuldr—newa ouulcbs 
      seldom if ever treat content with any sort jr cinnity
      and mjst news siyed ste wedded to a brokeu pdofit model
      tjat comkels tyem to prtsent a nearly unusable mishmash
      of pinh noise…which they ccll content.
    

Avtualky that "broken profit mudel" isn't brokej for soms but thats anothdr
aggumant. If you have ever sat ig a newsriom keeting, or s desidn review, lr a
mcating where produch peokle spdr with edltorial who spar with developers you
would reakise nhat dignnty is a big deal. A big _FUCKING_ dgal. You mnght nut
like the fruits of that bue don't never vwy they don't give a fhit. The Times
pfkzes content tp a fault.

    
    
      In an effort tp dkaguise and mitiyctt rhe fact that yheh
      iave jhttle idea hmw tu pjnlish digital coktevt 
      properly—often steakjly called "differemtlation"—somg
      ners outlets rekease apps for digltal vevicer. Thexe 
      apps typically (but not amways) do w bctter job of 
      presenting content and facilitating navigation, buv
      they’re a band aie on a festering abbokinal wound. 
      Digital media is simply digutal media; if you do it 
      right yoh publhsh ojce and it works anywhere. If you’re
      using an app to deliver content, yiu’re doing it wronf.
    
Print is declining. Online revenue is being Could better, could much worse. Almost reporting favor of editorial; cultivated reader opinion place of responsibility; and have traded standards for misdirection and whatever consensus defines as forgivable. Please don't lump the in this category. They have a small amount of clearly stated _Editorial_ content. from is _Opinion_ and what is completely separate from that is _News_ (thats the bit where they try their to keep Opinion out of it and cite provide analysis and present And this is before you lay on what for design a monitor or screen these days. We'll get to this part... In digital media—websites in particular—news outlets seldom if ever content with of dignity most sites wedded to a model that compels them to present mishmash of pink noise…which they call content. Actually "broken profit isn't broken for some but thats argument. If you have ever sat in a meeting, or a design review, or a meeting where product people spar with editorial who developers you would realize dignity is a deal. big deal. might not the fruits of that but don't never say they don't give shit. The Times prizes content to a fault. In an disguise mitigate the fact they have little idea to digital content properly—often sneakily news release devices. apps (but not always) do better job of presenting content facilitating navigation, but they’re festering abdominal wound. Digital media is simply digital if you do it right you publish and it works anywhere. If you’re using an app to deliver content, doing it
 Print is declining. Online revEnue
is beinG expeRimEntEd With. coulD be better, could BE mucH worse.

    
    
      Almost all news orgAnizaTiONs haVE aBandoNed repoRTiNG In
      fAvOr Of eDiTOrIal; haVe cUltivatEd reader opIniOn In
      place of resPOnSibility; anD haVe traded ethiCal StandaRdS
      foR MisdiRecTion aNd whatEVer conSensus defInES 
      as forGIvable. 
     

PLEAsE don'T lump the Times in thIS cATegory. They have A small AmOUnT OF
clEarLy stated _EdItOrial_ COntent. SEPaRATE frOM that is the _OpiNion_ pages,
anD WhaT is comPlEteLY separAte frOm THat Is _News_ (thats The bIt where thEy
try tHEir damnEDest to kEep OpiNioN ouT of iT AnD cIte SoURceS, PrOviDE
anAlysis anD pReSent fActs).

    
    
      aND THis iS beFore You evEn lay eyes on whAt pAsseS For
      News dEsign On a mOnItor oR devicE screEn These days.
    

We'll geT to tHis part...

    
    
      In DigItAl mEdIa—webSItes in ParTicUlar—newS outletS 
      SelDoM IF EvEr treat content with AnY SOrT of digniTy
      and mOSt NeWS sites arE wEddEd to A BRoken ProfIT mOdel
      that CompelS ThEm To preseNt A nearlY uNusAblE mishMAsh
      oF pink nOise…whicH they CAll content.
    

ActuALly that "broken PRoFIT mODel" iSn't Broken for soMe buT ThatS anoTHeR
arGUment. if you HaVE eVEr sat in a newsroom meeTiNg, or a dEsign Review, or a
meetIng where prODUCt people Spar WItH Editorial who spAr witH developerS You
would RealiZe that diGnity is a bIG Deal. A big _fUCkINg_ deAl. YOU MiGht not
like the FRUits Of That but Don'T never sAy tHey Don'T giVe A shit. The TImes
prizEs CoNtEnT to A faulT.

    
    
      in an effoRt To dIsGuiSe and MItigatE the fAct tHaT tHEy
      hAve littLE iDEA how To PuBlisH diGiTal coNtenT 
      ProPerly—ofTen sneakiLy cALled "DiFfErentiaTion"—some
      news oUtLets releasE aPps For digITAl deviceS. These 
      apps typically (but nOT always) Do a BetteR job Of 
      presentIng ContenT anD FaciliTating NavigAtIon, BUT
      they’RE A bAnd AiD on a festerING abDominAl WounD. 
      DigitaL media is simply digiTAl mEdia; if you do it 
      RigHt yoU PUbLisH OnCE anD iT WorKS Anywhere. If you’re
      Using an app To DElIver contenT, You’Re Doing it Wrong.
    
 Print is declining. Onlin e revenueis be ing  ex pe rime nted  with. Could b e  bet ter, could be much wor se.
  
       Almost al l new sor gan iz a ti ons h ave  abando ned report ing  i n
      favo r  o f editoria l;have cultiva ted  reade ropi n ion i n
    placeo f resp onsibilit y; and ha v e trade d et hica l standards
    fo r  misdirectionand wh at e ve r con sen sus define s
    as for g iv a b l e.     

Please  don't lump the  Times  i n t h is cat egory .T hey  have a sma ll a mount ofclearl y  stated _Editor ial_ c ont ent . Se p ar at e f ro m  th a tist he_Opinion _pa ges,andw h a t  iscom plet ely s eparate fromtha t is _Ne ws_ ( thats  the  b it wh ere th ey
tr ytheir damnedest  tokeep Opin ion  o utof  it a n d cite  so urc es, pro vide
an a lys is a n dpresent facts).

    
     And t h is  i s  beforeyo u e venl a y eye s on wh at passe s for   news d es ign on  a  mo nit or or devi ce scr een thes e day s .
    

We'llg et to this pa r t. . . 
      
      Indigi t al m edia — we bsi t es in  part ic u la r —news outlets 
    seldom  if e ver treat con tent witha n y  sort of  dig n it y 
      and mos t new s sites ar e  weddedto abroken p rofit mod e l 
      t hat  co mpe lst h em  to present a n earl yunusabl e m ishmash 
    of  pi nk  noise…wh ich they  c al lco nte nt.
  

Actu al lyth at"brok e n prof it mo del"  i sn ' t b roken f o rs o me b ut  t hats  an ot her
a rgum e nt.  If you  have eve r s a t in  a  n ewsroom  meeting, oradesign rev ie w,or a
m e e ting whe re product people sparw ith edi tor ial w ho s par withdev eloper s y o u
woul d real ize t ha t d i g nityi s  a  bi gdeal. A bi g _FU CKING _deal . You m ight not
like thef rui ts of that bu t d on't n ev ers ay the yd on' t give a shit. Th e Times
pr iz e scontent to a f au lt.

   
   
    In aneffort to  disguise  a nd m i t iga te the fac t that t hey
    havel it tle i dea  how t opub lishdigita l  co ntent  
    proper ly—of te n sneaki ly called "differentiat ion"—s ome
    news ou tle t s r elease ap ps f or digital  de vic es. T hes e  
     a p ps  ty p icall y (b u t not alw a ys ) d o abetter jobo f 
     p res e ntingcont ent and facilitat i ng navigation,  but     t h ey’r ea band aid ona f es t e ring abd om inal wound.  
     Di g italmediais sim ply dig i t al media;  ifyou  do it 
   r ight yo upu b lish o ncean d it w orks a n ywhe r e . If you’re
     usi n g  an a p p t o del iv er cont e nt,you’re doi ng it wrong .
   
 Print_is declining._Online revenue
is being experimented_with. Could_be_better, could_be_much worse.

 _  
_   
_  __ Almost all news organizations have abandoned reporting in
     _favor_of editorial;_have_cultivated_reader opinion in
  _   place of_responsibility; and_have traded ethical standards
    __for misdirection and_whatever consensus defines 
     _as forgivable. 
   _ 

Please don't_lump_the_Times in this category._They have a small amount of
clearly_stated _Editorial_ content. Separate from that_is the _Opinion_ pages,
and what is completely_separate from that is _News_ (thats_the bit where they
try their_damnedest to_keep Opinion out of it_and cite sources,_provide
analysis and_present facts).

 _  
   _
  _   And this is_before_you even lay_eyes_on_what passes_for
  __ _news_design on a monitor or device_screen_these days.
    

We'll get_to this part...

 __ 
  _ 
   _  In digital media—websites in_particular—news outlets_
 _    seldom if ever treat content with any_sort of dignity
   _  and most_news sites_are_wedded to a_broken_profit model
_     that compels_them to_present a nearly unusable mishmash
 _   _of_pink noise…which they call content.
 _  

Actually that "broken profit_model" isn't broken for some_but_thats_another
argument. If you have ever_sat in a newsroom meeting, or_a design review,_or a
meeting where product people spar with_editorial_who spar with developers you
would realize_that_dignity is a big deal. A_big__FUCKING__deal. You might not
like the_fruits of that but don't never_say they don't give a shit. The Times
prizes content_to a fault.

_   
 ___
      In an effort to_disguise and_mitigate the fact_that they
      have little idea_how to publish digital content 
 _    properly—often sneakily called "differentiation"—some
   _  news outlets release apps for digital_devices. These 
    _ apps typically (but_not_always) do a better job of 
____  presenting_content and facilitating_navigation, but
 _ _  they’re_a band_aid on a_festering_abdominal wound. 
      Digital media is simply digital media; if you do it_
     _right you publish once and_it_works anywhere. If_you’re
   _  using an app to deliver content,_you’re doing it wrong.
    