Debate within the New York Times over longstanding distinctions between editorial opinion and journalistic reporting prompt reflection upon two parallel issues: (1) do blog readers prefer opinion to reporting and (2) do academic bloggers maintain distinctions like that and distinctions between scholarly presentation and essayistic voice?
Clark Hoyt, Public Editor at the Times, wrote in Sunday’s paper about business journalists/columnists both reporting stories and expressing prescriptive opinions on them. He instanced recent cases, including Joe Nocera and Andrew Ross Sorokin (both covering General Motors and opining strongly on whether bankruptcy versus federal financial support is the better policy) and Gretchen Morgenson (covering Congressional hearings on credit rating agencies and separately opining on the credibility of the agency witnesses).
Those writers, along with the paper’s editors, say they are evaluating applicable policies concerning the division between reporting and opinion. But, in general, all seem to suggest that there is little or nothing wrong with reporters also expressing opinions. They do recognize the importance of clearly distinguishing when one is reporting versus opining. An example of a policy they would support is that writers could not publish a news story and an opinion column on the same subject the same day.
Mr. Hoyt, essentially the public’s watchdog at the paper, expresses more serious reservations. He sees a profound problem of blurring the lines between news and opinion at the paper. The current business section’s activities are a continuing manifestation of a practice that puts the paper’s credibility at risk, he worries.