There’s much discussion today of this piece from today's business section of the NYT. (HT PJM)
I found this comment particularly revealing:
Jamie McIntyre, CNN's senior correspondent at the Pentagon, said the traditional skills of sifting through information and presenting it in context were especially vital now because there were so many other sources of information.
'With the Internet, with blogs, with text messages, with soldiers writing their own accounts from the front lines, so many people are trying to shape things into their own reality,' he said. 'I don't worry so much anymore about finding out every little detail five minutes before someone else. It's more important that we take that information and tell you what it means.'
Rather than go back (?) to providing just the facts, CNN’s aim, then, is to be the principle ‘shaper’ of those facts – the capo di tutti capi of ‘shapers.’ But why does CNN think it is qualified for that role? What makes McIntyre think his take on anything is more compelling or accurate than, say, that of Richard Fernandez, Scott Johnson, or Rick Ballard? In what way is he more qualified than them? If CNN wants to go down that road, fine. But they need to understand that their only strategic asset is a prime-mover advantage in a field where such an advantage is less and less important.
Should we give Christie a second look?
6 minutes ago