Times news is often presented many hours after more urgent online sources have covered the essentials, however, this type of journalism prompts many readers to subscribe.
Enhancing information through an author's sensory experience avoids the repetitive constraints imposed by the protocols of ordinary journalistic reportage.
Interesting change, and the strong reader feedback is even more so. As a digital-only subscriber, I could use a friendly pointer to actually FIND this content ... the article refers to the International section (safe to assume that is the World section?), and both Journals and Dispatches, neither of which comes up in the section directory or by searching in the NYTimes app. Are these stories simply embedded in the news feed?
5
@David Arthur Agreed. Even though I have read some of the pieces referenced in this article I never knew they were part of a different segment of the Times until now. They should do a better job of advertising this
1
I hope to see many more of these great stories. So what if the journalists are giving their own opinion? This is exactly what these pieces are all about. Some commenters seem to be put off by the "narcissism" of the journalists who write them. Are we really this lucky? Do we live in a world where narcissism results in quality writing? We should be celebrating!
1
I think the primary purpose of the news is to provide factual, objective news reports with as little bias as possible. I would agree that “dispatch” type reporting serves a purpose but it should be clearly labeled as such (so as to avoid presenting itself as news) and work to add flavor and color to an otherwise objective news report. We need more objective news reporting; not less! If the New York Times, one of the world’s premier news services, gives itself over to journalists expressing how they feel about what they are reporting and passing that off as news then we are doomed. Where shall we go for real, reliable, as objective as possible news?
1
I think it's interesting how people think such articles would be TOO subjective.
As a scientist and physician, the further I go in my career, the more I realize there's quite a bit of subjectivity even in the supposedly objective. So to me, such a series of articles would be helpful to give more context to "objective" facts.
2
Is there a way to subscribe to Dispatches via email?
1
Reading others’ comments, I agree that your new “Dispatches” needs to walk a fine line. If the NYT staff keeps them informative in the manner of Ernie Pyle in WW2 and Clete Roberts in later times, I think it’ll be. Great. But beware, we have enough “personal views” of events available 24 hours a day. Don’t become the New York Times that resembles Facebook, Instagram, or Twitter.
2
I hate the tap-through concept linked here. Those gif graphics appear jumbled and frantic. Ugly, really. It’s inelegant at best, and painful at worst. I cannot look at flashing or pulsing images because they send my brain into overload. In order to read the text squeezed in between your pulsing graphics, I have to cover them with my hand.
Please stop with the junky bells and whistles and stick to good, straightforward reporting — enhanced with still photography or embedded videos. No gifs.
As for reporters writing about their own experiences and observations, I think that can enrich the more traditional coverage. But only if the personal does not usurp the objective.
3
I don't mind when photos accompany a written story, but I really don't like watching a video. I guess I am a troglodyte because I'd rather read than watch a video.
3
Today's dispatch features that bane of the Internet, the animated GIF. If this is your future, you have already lost.
6
These “tap-throughs” lower the New York Times to the level of clickbait listicles. They’re not far from “10 ways inflation in Venezuela is crazy (you won’t believe #5!!!)”. But I don’t understand the impetus for it, since you aren’t showing a different ad on each page, which is the only reason this simple-minded format exists on the rest of the Internet.
If you only have a paragraph or two of total words to offer, I don’t think you have a story worth telling yet. Spend some more time and write a real story about how inflation in Venezuela affects people. And then report it using mostly text, the medium we can consume at our preferred pace (vastly more quickly than “tap through” or video if we want).
I also agree with other commenters that “what it’s like to report on X” is a pure opinion piece, not a news piece. Opinion pieces are fine, but they should be labeled that way.
3
Your videos seldom load smoothly nor do they play without interruption. Too bad, the Times was one of the last major journals, certainly in the USA to cover international affairs adequately. Loosing the tech boys to create "tap throughs" (whatever those are) and bad youtube imitations is one more slither down hill.
3
I recognize that the Times wants to appear up-to-the-minute, but please realize that not everyone reading on a mobile phone has the very latest IPhone, and that many of us don't keep headsets plugged in constantly. If a story won't load as text on my not-so-old Android phone, then I am going to skip it. And I may or may not come back to it later in the evening on the desktop.
4
I would love to see hard reporting (of political news, for example) paired with dispatch reporting (to capture the social/sociological state of play). I imagine that the dispatches will eventually amount to an independently priceless archive for micro- and macro-historical research. Here's a vote for all kinds of digital linking (to older stories, cultural reporting, travel reporting) that will make up-to-the-minute reporting more accessible and "real." Keep on keeping on!
Not sure why the negative comments. The Journal has always been one of my favorite NY Times series. I had forgotten about it, but now I remember I always used to look for it years ago when I had the print edition.
1
I like the mix of text, photos and video. Nice.
Here's an unreported, slow-moving trainwreck crisis in Europe. I live in the Czech Republic. There seems to be a HUGE imbalance between Russian disinformation on social media and radio + nationalist complaining on one side, and virtually no NATO and EU PR on the other. It's taking a terrible toll. I would ascribe the Czechs' pro-Russian president's close re-election as being the payoff of years of Russian investment in lies to the Czechs. Plus an effective last minute billboard campaign paid for by...no one knows. So, how about visiting and assessing this situation in at least a few of the most vulnerable former Warsaw Pact countries. It's not astonishing that Russia's constant lies make such inroads when the people hear nothing about the benefits of NATO and the EU. Thank you for your excellent journalism. Desperately necessary in the Time of Trump.
Michael Herr's "Dispatches" is one of my favorite book, but parts of it were fictional. I hope your correspondents don't embellish their dispatches with fiction too. That said, I do, however, look forward to these missives in the Times.
I would like to see an article on the migration crisis in the Mediterranean. Italy is changing the rules of how people are rescued at sea. What does this mean for the future?
A great idea. I look forward to reading them!
1
Wonderful idea.
Last time when I visited India couple years ago, I saw the transgender community (aka Hijra) in Kolkata in desperate condition. They are a marginalized community and suffer greatly from social abuse and injustice. It would be wonderful to see their pain and suffering being highlighted on a news media like NYT. Hopefully Times will consider a dispatch to photograph their lives, which is unbelievably unjust. The world needs to know how still some transgender communities around the world are being pushed outside the society's boundary.
Thanks!
The international report's "Journal" articles could be fun, but were often cringeworthy: the stories would reinforce stereotypes about foreign cultures (Isn't it charming -- and frustrating! -- that Latin Americans don't care about time? Oh, the lovable Italians, so committed to beauty but so impractical!). Basically, the theme was: Look at the curious folkways of the natives. Are you going to be resurrecting that refrain?
I hope you reflect on Jill Abramson's questioning today the "decision by international... to focus on personal feelings and experiences of NYT journalists covering news" in the Daily Beast. We're in a time of crisis: what we need is sharper analysis, not more "storytelling" and first-person narcissism to get click-throughs.
4
Thanks for this comment, John. It's spot on.
It seems from this piece by the editor that the die has already been cast and that the NYT is pushing its writers to try to immerse their readers in the sights and sounds, emotion and drama of international news events rather than aim for penetrating analysis.
I'm sure many commenters will disagree, but I think that there is something voyeuristic and almost racist (regardless of the race or ethnicity of the writers) about pieces like the one on the Rohingya camp, where a dying refugee taps a reporter on the shoulder and starts a conversation.
Immersive pieces may be more hip and cool and may drive more revenue/clicks, but these pieces are also more likely to be sensationalistic and stereotyping.
The WSJ, for years, had a way of presenting a breaking issue, describing a thumbnail sketch of how it affected involved people, and then reporting on the larger scale structural issues behind the story dynamic. They did this in a non sensationalistic way.
I've lived and worked in developing countries for more than 14 years, countries that have, from time to time, been the subject of NYT stories. Unfortunately, the dispatch-type pieces about the places I know often leave me feeling that the writer was a naive 20 something zealously chasing life experiences, but not always as zealous in uncovering the dynamics behind the story/issue.
I fear that NYT international coverage is embarking on the wrong path.
1
I don't care what you call them, just please keep doing them. These pieces are some of the best things to be found on your pages.
1
I have for years kept electronic copies of NYT stories for research and occasionally for class presentation. Your newer web formats don't seem to archive well. I hope you've figured out a way to preserve these materials that works for your own purposes, if not for mine or that or other readers.
1
I love this idea. I already find the Journals engaging; I look forward to the free flowing Dispatches. Allowing your reporters to tell a story, with room for individual insight, is one of the reasons I subscribe.
3
I like the ideas behind your new “Dispatches” pieces. I believe they will give additional life and verve to your already outstanding news reporting. Theee are times when your stories move me emotionally across a wide range of feelings. I think dispatches will instill these feelings more often. Keep up the GREAT work.
3
These are great sections of the paper but I've noticed with the digitally focused articles the tendency for the Times to insert itself into the story. Some of it is literally to make a clickable link, lines like "Here's what we did" or "Here's four takeaways" or "Here's what we know". Quit it with the personal pronouns.
I think its kind of distracting, journalists have a responsibility to objectively report the news, the language directs the reader towards an opinion. I can acknowledge the nature of how the news is consumed has changed and some of these are just features to make it all more interactive. But personally, I'm not so interested in what the journalists are literally thinking, hopefully that comes forth in their writing style or what they choose to highlight/omit.
9
I wasn't going to leave a comment because I thought I would be one voice of many but I see from a selection of the comments below that I am actually in the minority.
I am delighted to see that you will be expanding your international coverage to include these pieces from your reporters. I'm not of the opinion that articles addressing reporters' thoughts and experiences are mutually exclusive with fact-based, objective reporting. To the contrary, I think these pieces can inform and illuminate the objective pieces in thought-provoking ways. So you can count on at least one reader in me.
5
The more personal opinion you add, the more you descend further into the tabloid fracas. It may help boost page views and ad profits, but it will certainly further cripple your readership by preventing them from thinking for themselves.
6
As a retired Foreign Service specialist having traveled to 48 countries, I can appreciate the first hand perspective you get from people who reports from on-the-ground. Many times I've been to not-so-traveled places to find it completely different from news reports and dated travel brochures. Most surprising are middle east countries. The people turned out to be regular folk with priorities much like mine - security, good job opportunities, affordable food available and decent schools for the kids.
11
A foray into such an initiative has to be treaded into carefully to the extent that there may be pieces where the journalist's thought process is relevant to the story. I disagree with such an initiative being used across the board
2
This format was extraordinarily difficult to follow. I couldn't tell whether to go to the left or right for the next slide as visible arrows often pointed left with no arrow pointing right, but the left arrow (as I expected) just took me back to the previous slide. I have a deep interest in Venezuela and so I persisted but remain unsatisfied.
The ending seemed so abrupt. That was because I tried several times to move past "but how long will it last?" (about the corn flakes production) and the next slide was the credits page. I thought that must be the end of the piece and only after I started writing this comment and went again to the "how long will it last?" page to be sure I was getting the quotation right that it moved on to more. I would have given up completely but for this "accident" of timing. And, now, having written comment, I went back to follow the story further and, again, I can't get past that page, it only takes me to the credits.
So, I'm very happy to hear your reporters' personal takes on what they see (if that's what you want to know here), but I'd way rather just read them in a traditional format. This one simply doesn't work for me.
Thanks for asking.
5
I echo the concerns of other commenters that the Times has long stood for informed reporting that--more often than not--works against inherent bias to impart news in a way that is fact-driven. I see striking up a clear distinction between personal opinions, interpretations, and general reporting should be of primary importance when considering how to implement this change.
2
I am old enough to remember when journalism attempted objective reporting -- impossible, of course; objectivity is for gods -- but still, the effort was all. "Breaking the fourth wall," an unfortunate metaphor for a publication, seems to me unwise; why should I care what your writers think as they write? It's what they write that matters, and that, as much as possible, should exclude their opinions. If you wish to continue your "Journal" pieces, fine. But please keep reporters' personalities out of it.
10
Your "tap-through", a bizarre effort at (minimal) interaction, is just an annoying version of cheap advertising's "click-through", but why? The parsimonious dribbling of information costs both content supplier (in server traffic & bandwidth) and consumer (in annoyance) without apparent benefit as the Times version doesn't result in more ad views.
Worse, the Times' version doesn't work -- it's slow, balky, and even if it works it resembles a bad imitation of "The Blair Witch Project". Do what you excel at, the written word, and quit trying to be YouTube or Instagram. You might as well convey Venezuela's inflation pain as a comic strip.
(But if you're really committed to this folly, at least get the servers and bandwidth needed to support it. Sheesh.)
8
“Journal” stories have long been favorites of mine. Huge thanks for including interesting stories about how people live in other parts of the world, among the torrent of stories about Trump’s latest fiascos and what might happen in the midterms. These days I read using the Times iPhone app, and lament that I often miss Journal stories because they’re not in one place or category. Please add a “Dispatches” category to the iPhone app!!
1
Please don’t do what the BBC does with its website. They stream video without adding text that expands on stuff not covered in video, stream video with embedded text as if it was power point, the list is endless. What a waste of bandwidth!
10
Bad idea to comingle the feelings and impressions of journalists in the field with their straight up reporting of facts on the ground. It just gives fodder to the NewsMax type of bloggers who will pick up a journalist's heartfelt response to a situation and characterize it as inherent bias.
This idea sounds similar to the increasing tendency to place opinion pieces on the news page. As a former journalist, I detest this trend. Don't do it. Keep the Dispatches as separate pieces. Move them to the Opinion section of the paper. Let journalists vent their emotional responses to the horrors they cover in that space, not in the news hole.
Don't get me wrong. I think context is important in any news story. I just don't think you have to engage in freeform journaling to embed context into a news report.
Your reporters are amongst the best on the planet. Help them to remain reporters. We need more reporters in the field reporting facts, not celebrities or columnists, or analysts. Give me the facts first, context included and I will decide how I feel about the issue.
Then I will thumb back to the Opinion Section to get a sense of how it felt to report that story. Keep the news the news. Just the facts, please.
21
I like the new format because it is more personal and seems to invade the subject and present it in a more informal style. Keep the format going.
Bill
2
My only concern is that true journalism is falling by the wayside in favor of commentating. As long as the format remains clear and separate from journalistic reporting, I’d be interested in seeing a writer’s perspective.
What I expect to happen is that, over time, these articles will be incorporated into the paper and moved around into other sections—the reporting will become more like what we see on television. I’m not okay with that, and for me it calls into question the authority of this paper entirely.
12
Less interested in what the new tools offer than the subjects. If they enhance things, then fine. If they help you keep international coverage, even better.
As far as stories, report on some areas taking the U.N.’s previous work on sustainability seriously, like the 17 Sustainable Development Goals, and how that’s working for them.
Perhaps someday, we’ll be ready to learn from that in the U.S. and get on-board. Your reporting would help, even if not everything is talk-about-it-over-a-beer-ready.
This has been one of the biggest largely unreported areas, so time to both catch up while adding the Times’ special strengths to it.
1
Reading the observations of people who have a strong sense of situational awareness, and who express themselves well, usually gives me better sense of the actual effects - in real peoples' lives - of stories in the news. Occasionally these pieces are the only reason I become interested - and subsequently an activist - with respect to an issue. (True confession!)
It is too easy to have tragedy/ humanitarian crisis burnout in our country and our world of today. The NYT dispatch, journal, notebook, etc. formats put very real, human faces on stories. Having your correspondents' reflections, anecdotes, and views, in addition to a verified factual article, is added value. The format makes these stories compelling, relatable, even heart-rending.
Please continue to represent a standard of excellence and positive innovation.
7
I’ll bet the NYT is surprised by the largely skeptical, even negative responses here, because the NYT, like most of us, takes for granted the propriety of its own intentions. A good reminder that others do not.
18
I learn so much from reading these dispatches, especially the ones on complete deterioration of medical services in Venezuela. I remember reading a detailed analysis on what caused the economic and social meltdown in Venezuela. That was so very illuminating - I would like to read more of these types of dispatches. As far as getting an insight on the journalists' own thoughts, I am willing to see how that goes. I find all of NYT journalists to be of sound mind and I don't think they will go crazy with interjecting their opinions. Whatever you do, just do not get the opinion writers to do any reporting!
1
My $0.02: Working to improve the international news is a good idea, because it my opinion it is not as strong as it once was.
Having pictures and videos is good. Really like the earlier suggestion to include maps.
However having the reporter break through the fourth wall is both a slippery slope and difficult to get right.
Perhaps place the news story in the international section and the dispatch in the travel section.
7
I just watched ‘How to Survive When Money is Worthless’ by Nicholas Casey. I did feel like I was on the ground, even though it also made me cry and very angry. Another reader commented that this format crosses over from journalism to narcissism. I completely disagree. I trust the integrity of the journalist and it was not about them. I look forward to more.
4
I would love to see an account of how African migrants in Malta are interacting with the general community. There has been coverage of the migrant camps, but I am curious about how migrants are making their lives outside of the camps and any tensions or support from the locals. Last time I was there I was struck by seeing Africans working on the beach, traveling to the capitol, and so on. In a small homogenous country that has not been defined by immigration this is a big change.
2
I think it’s a great idea to share the reporter’s view. I think that’s a welcome transition to future journalism. It’s why blogs and other online news are taking away your readers. It could be at the end of the story and be titled “What’s next?“ or “My best guess.” The idea is to share a one-sentence informed opinion.
Great idea, adds flesh and blood to facts and events.
As long as these stories are clearly distinguished from the news stories, why forbid journalists to tell us the human side of the news?
Can you describe how you use readers' ideas? In the recent past, when readers made their opinions known, what I understood the response to be was that Times people know far better than readers. Examples of this are the hiring of right wing opinion writers for "balance" which is a false equivalence.
So how do you judge and incorporate these ideas?
2
Almost 25 years ago I started reading the Times, and the "Journal" articles immediately became my favorite part of the paper. I loved reading about a slice of life in some part of the world that we would probably otherwise not hear much about, unless there was a major election or some kind of disaster there.
So I am sad to see the Journals going away. I hope the new "Dispatches" will be similar, but like other commenters, I'm really not interested in hearing about what is going through a reporter's mind. I read the articles to learn something new about a different part of the world.
5
If I were you, I'd err more in the direction of the Joe Friday school -- All we know are the facts, ma'am.
Also, please either ditch the stories where you teach millennials how to perform basic life tasks like boiling water or tying their shoes, or at least keep them off the Times home page. There is nothing quite as depressing as opening the Times to find out what's happening with the economy or immigration and to be faced with a story telling twenty-somethings how to do their laundry.
Yes, going digital has opened an enormous number of possibilities for journalistism but has also opened an enormous number of ways to dumb down journalism, and the NY Times seems eager to try each one.
1
It is ironic that the NYT has chosen the word"dispatch" as an update on the word "journal" It is an old newspaper term as in "Dispatches from the Western Front" from WWII. It means "a report sent in from abroad". I must be too old for modernity. But I like the concept.
This concept of personalizing the reporting is exactly the wrong direction to go. Journalistic standards have been consistently slipping over the years. Intentionally adding the personal thoughts and feelings of the journalist further degrades the overall quality of reporting. Too much editorializing is already slipping into the news and the Times is already known for reporting with enough and sometimes too much of a slant. Encouraging more editorializing only further degrades the public’s confidence in the reliability of major news outlets like the Times. Stick to the facts and leave the opinions and feelings for the Opinion section.
2
I’d like to see less of your writer’s opinions in their news articles. There’s a reason there’s an opinion and Op-Ed page.
1
I tried to read your story on the inflation in Venezuela, because it is an important topic. But instead, I quickly gave up after being forced to click through captioned photographs, just like the most useless clickbait websites.
This may come as a shock to your digital consultants, but New York Times subscribers actually know how to READ. Don't waste our time.
1
I don't see how it works. Does a link appear in a news article? Will it have a caption?
Sounds like less in-depth stories and more bells and whistles. Please prove me wrong. Whatever the platform, words are still the key currency of NYT.
1
Very sad to hear the objectivity of NYT reporting is being compromised by the choice to become a published "diary. " Objectivity is an art and a social responsibility, sure, it's hard and selfless, but that's what made NYT stand out. No thank you.
3
I'd suggest having one of your interns comb through your archive, looking at the history of coverage on a country by country basis (ignoring wire reports). With the possible exception of some countries considered "great powers", in country after country, the high water mark for breadth and depth of coverage was the pre-"Journal" 1980s: Mongolia; Jamaica; Angola; Ecuador; Romania.
What your coverage of late lacks is not personality, it's depth. You may be proud as a peacock of Jeffrey Gettleman's quirkily individual viewpoint, but the real reason Jeune Afrique is a better source for Africa news is that they do more old-fashioned reportage. And unlike in the time of your Ebola coverage, they never act like a single story arc in one subregion is more newsworthy than everything else on the continent combined.
Since the insititution of "Journals", the Times has increasingly treated the Caribbean as a place of merely touristic or quirky interest. Perhaps your Asian or Eastern European readers feel better served, but I say international news needs no bigger dose of subjective personality than does US political news. Just give us the facts, and more of them than you've lately done.
Journals and Dispatches are makeup on the pig of declining broadly first-draft-of-history reportage.
Editor’s note: This comment has been anonymized in accordance with applicable law(s).
17
A good idea. I'm concerned though that in writing this way, opinions and biases could creep in unconsciously. Please use a point of view of one who is curious, eager to learn, has questions that need more investigation or research. Maybe let the writer express what he/she wants to learn more about on the topic.
1
I want to know more about what people are facing in Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala that is causing them to run for their lives. What is it really like there now? I lived in Honduras 1989-1992 and worked at The American School of Tegucigalpa.
2
While I agree that these dispatches could be interesting reading, I think the practice will move the NYT dangerously closer to the kind of partisan journalism we are seeing from other outlets. Reporters will be hard pressed not to bring their own bias to stories told from their personal perspective. I count on the Times for unbiased reporting, and I worry that this practice will endanger that.
1
Be careful. This could bring about the end of the Times as the newspapers of record.
Feelings of corespondents is indistinguishable from opinion. Opinion has its place, but not in reporting a news story.
Editorial opinion has biased your news already. Further intrusion into international news will destroy the Times.
5
Please continue to separate ‘facts’ from opinion and feelings. Opinions and feelings aren’t facts and change by the hour. They can be included in the same article or NEWS report, as long as the distinction is obvious to the reader.
2
Anything by Jeffrey Gettleman is superb. Fancy new formats are unimportant.
1
I’d welcome more first person political cultural reporting from the road, along with opinion. There’s so much opinion floating around I’d welcome more coming from informed journalists with editing at home base. See bourdain.
Michael Ruhlman
Traditionally news organization have had an editorial responsibility to separate what is happening from the personal experience of the correspondent. Not dispationately or without emotional content - but with a deliberate intent to make events more important than correspondent’s visceral experience. Otherwise, emotive-clickbait-“What’s the mood there?”-type journalism overwhelms faithful recounting of what has transpired. When the writer’s state of mind is the story, the reader must work much harder to avoid becoming isolated from fact. Encouraging more of a correspondent’s life experience to come through in their work is a slippery slope - particularly when the machinery that reveals the world to its readers is inclined to bring us more stories that play to our heartfelt passions instead of our intellectual interest. I continue to be troubled that what makes the “front page” is not the same for every reader - but specially selected based on reader’s previously disclosed predispositions (past stories that they have viewed). Movement away from a news format that recount events and encourages selective distillation fact for the sake of greater emotional content and conflict-charged storytelling while nakedly seeking “eyes-on” advertising revenue - promotes a more hormone-charged version of how the world is.
Opinions and feelings about a matter are good for the OpEd section. If dispatches are supposed to be news please keep it objective.
2
I have avoided these stories because they stray from journalism into narcissism. Journalists do an important job, but I am not any more interested in their internal monologue than I am in that of my dentist. I don't want to read a story that would "delight your family in a letter home." I want the news. Stick to reporting.
25
Well, then, don't read the columns.
I'm a scientist. We try to focus on objective data all day long but the truth is that people go to scientific conferences BECAUSE we want to hear the opinions, what's on the horizon but not proven yet, the trends, etc.
That's how I would look at these types of articles.
I don't agree with you at all. We need more, not fewer, stories with a personal touch. I don't know if they have anything to do with narcissism, but I'm sure they have everything to do with feelings, with the human aspect to every story that is so often dismissed by those who just aim to be "factual". By the way, the word "narcissism" has been bandied about lately in a most meaningless way. So what if it was narcissism that prompted a journalist to write a great piece? We readers have nothing to do with that. Let us all give journalists the freedom to write stories that feel close to their hearts and to sort out their psychological "problems" with their therapists (if they so wish). We readers don't belong in this discussion.
just what we need, more personal narratives. ugh.
I have no interest in the subjective thoughts of newsmen. I go to literature for that.
19
"we decided it was time to bring the Journal into the modern era. We are maintaining its mission, but expanding its form.
We’re also giving it a new name: “Dispatches.” If that sounds a little less sedate, even a bit urgent, that is what we are aiming for. We want to give readers a sense of being there on the ground with us."
Wow. How self indulgent and self absorbed. Report the news you less-than-adequate source of what's happening. In fact, if you get it in paper form, you can call it "toilet paper. "
10
While I agree that drawing up clear lines between what's fact and personal thought is of key importance here, I disagree that the Times should be considered a "less-than-adequate source of what's happening," for this move, nor for their reporting in general.
I would reconsider what you consider to be "toilet paper" and real journalism, and whether name-calling suffices as a proper tool for discourse on this topic.
1
This would be called the Opinions page. There is already an overabundance of opinions online. It's hard to find the actual, factually accurate information that I personally rely on the Times to report. I'm disappointed that the Times is bowing to the pressure of needing to entertain the masses versus providing real, unbiased reporting. Reporting is hard work. Sharing feelings and opinions and calling it reporting is the easy way out.
11
i think its a fine idea. please make it non political or provide both sides of the political spectrum. thank you
7
These articles can touch on things in a huge range of topics. In looking ay the examples provided in this piece, there are articles about social changes in China (bikes/cars); the problems Venice faces due to tourism (too much of a thing is as bad as too little); and economic upheaval in Venezuela due to runaway inflation and political ostracism; etc. The examples can be subsumed under opinion, travel, environment, money/ business, world news or any number of other categorical headings, but the real difference is the point of view from which they are written. Instead of pushing the correspondent out of the frame of the story, s/he is an integral part of it. I have NO problem with this, as long as the correspondent's voice is identified. Correspondents are, after all, trained to collect information and convey it. Is it terrible to know what a writer thinks? I believe it's more honest to write a properly structured piece as described by NYT, than it is to make horrendously biased, inaccurate ad hominem attacks on one's Twitter feed.
In this era of information silos and "fake news," when our president espouses the stupid notion of "alternative facts," it is extremely important for the NY Times, our country's premier news source, to keep a clear distinction between fact and opinion. I think you should be very careful about combining the two. We know that having an expert's opinion can broaden and deepen our understanding of the facts, but we need to keep the line clear.
24
James,
You touched on my concern as well. I love the idea of humanizing these pieces but it should be clearly noted.
Please, please, please no “all video” dispatches. I come here for text, not video. If you must do video, please include a written transcript for those of us who want to read our news.
58
I am also commenting to request please always transcript video.
1
At the very least, if you are doing videos, please caption them. I am hard of hearing and there are so many Times videos that are not accessible due to the lack of captioning.
1
This, emphatically. I subscribe to the Times because it is a newspaper, not a radio station, not a TV station, not a Youtube channel.
I think it would be really interesting to hear about the protests currently going on in Romania
1
I prefer that you report the news in a neutral way and not make it a chatty discussion. If it’s opinion, put it in the op-ed section.
1
Canada’s shameful treatment of its First Nations peoples would make for an eye-opening exposé. Way above national average suicide rates, lack of clean drinking water, drug and alcohol abuse are just some of the issues that face the indigenous people of this country. Third world treatment within a prosperous first world nation.
I can’t help but think of the recently late Anthony Bourdain in regards to the mission of the Times new format.
I eagerly await to read some insight of what the writes will experience. News is information, story telling is a shared experience.
WHO is the story about? I worry that the dispatch will become about the writer and not the subject, more of a blog post than a newspaper article.
1
Just make sure you keep your reporting well, and very visibly, separated from your "autoethnographies" (a garbage trend in the "social sciences").
Not interested in your opinion. the nyt is already full of opinion pieces as news which has changed the nature, and lowered the quality of the reporting.
9
Thanks for providing us with an overview of how and why the Times are modernizing their international reporting. I am slightly hesitant only in that I worry about too much opinion creeping into the reports. I say this because of the recent Times domestic reporting, in particular political reporting, which I feel has lost objectivity. It would be a shame to for readers to have to increase their skepticism of the Times international reports because of real or perceived bias. Still I think it’s a good idea overall as it will flesh out stories we hear about but have little in depth knowledge. A few years ago Canada’s CBC Radio 1 had a long running series called Dispatches hosted by journalist Rick Macinnis-Rae. While in audio format it was an excellent weekly show that provided in depth reporting by journalists stationed around the world. Here is the link, archives may still be available.
http://www.cbc.ca/dispatches/
If the Times can approach this level of international reporting - and not to forget the podcast format in this new age of journalism - it will be an excellent upgrade to important journalism.
I hope these "human interest" articles don't take space away from "hard" news reporting. Sounds like more Sunday magazine stuff.
15
I hope these "human interest" don't take space away from "hard" reporting of the news. Sounds like more Sunday magazine stuff.
2
NO to other than attempts at objectivity
14
I have always loved the journals and we'll find the new dispatches compelling I'm sure. I do worry that the personalization which is so compelling and short will overtake the more balanced or factual accounts and become the narrative we understand as "news". Opinion is so quickly becoming all that we know and all that is circulated on social media. Opinion so easily slips into acceptance as fact. I love it and hope that the links to the background articles are always present and people are directed to the broader story.
I love the variety of formats and welcome the breaks in the fourth wall. Stories are best told with feeling. All of these formats add to the feeling experience.
I think it's very interesting to hear/read the personal voice of a reporter on the ground, as long it's clearly apart from "facts" reporting. In these times of confusion, manipulation and lies, I would welcome "the story behind the story", how the reporter got there, what he/she is thinking, feeling, how he/she reacted to the situation as a human being. That, plus accurate and rigorous reporting, would help us get "the whole story".
Personal thoughts should be welcomed in the journals. What's going through the journalists mind as the story unfolds is in many ways as important as the story itself.
I happen to be a history buff, so tying together a current story with the history of the area would peak my interest. One place that comes to mind is Liberia. There is a strong connection with the U.S. dating back to the 1800', starting with the American Colonization Society. Later the capital Monrovia was named after James Monroe.
This is great. I fully support this initiative and look forward to reading these pieces going forward. I appreciate highlighting these pieces to help differentiate these from normal articles.
The Times is one of the last great refuges of the written word. Please for the love of God don’t let that change. I can get all the GIFs and selfie travel videos I need on Reddit.
The Journals have always been a favorite.
18
Excellent idea! This format brings an immediacy to the story.
Governments don't make food.
Venezuela has been in trouble for years. Why?
I know many wealthy Venezuelans have moved to Florida. What did they stop doing when they left the country.
How is it that there is no food. Where is the farmers production going?
Would appreciate a deep dive into the mechanics of the descent into the nightmare that is the present day situation.
Blaming Madero is superficial. What actually happened?
I think that in order to become” a bit more modern”, the International Report should present what the people living outside the USA or the Western World, think of the USA and or the Western World.
Today, people living in the USA or in the Western World, have travelled or seen many presentations of the places where the foreign correspondents are present. Nevertheless, your readers, barely if not rarely, know what the people living outside their USA/Western World, know or think about them.
Said differently, present sometimes the view of the outside world on the USA/Western World, on their view of our life and the impact it has on their life.
I think this is a wonderful initiative. As an aspiring audio journalist, I am always excited to see the author’s voice and style in more intimate pieces. It’s a great way to learn and develop my own writing.
I think this is a great initiative to go back to very personal and direct journalism. It would be really interesting, for example, to go to country's that recently had elections and interview the people that lead opposition governments and their supports. In Colombia it would be interesting to interview "Las Madres de Soacha" (The Mothers of Soacha), a group of women whose kids were taken away by the army and executed, and see how their stories play out in today's politics.
1
I love this change, looking forward to read more dispatches. Here in the Dominican Republic I have noticed a growing trend of young Venezuelan baseball players (former prospects who are brought here to try to sign with a team but dont make the cut) staying on here by themselves. It breaks my heart to think of them staying here to work essesentially homeless and without family. Most of these kids are 18, 19 at the most. All because they feel the situation back home is too dire. I would be interested to read a proper story about this issue. Thanks!
I love these dispatch stories. You always run at least a few in each week's Travel section and I look forward to reading them because I feel way more like I'm there, such as meandering through streets in the footsteps of a long dead poet or hiking difficult trails with the locals. The writer's style provides a personal connection that draws me in, as if I've joined up with a friend in discovery. Learning this way about other people and places overseas becomes more of an interesting journey. So carry on!
The idea sounds like a wonderful expansion of writing, beyond traditional news stories, but my worry is the bright line between news and opinion which The Times always struggles to maintain. You usually succeed quite well at this separation. Please make it abundantly clear to writers and to readers that Dispatches will, of necessity, reflect opinion, but the news will remain news.
The Journals have always been one of my favorite features. As often as not, though, I’ve wished a small map was included, especially for the less well known areas. Knowing where in the world I’m reading about really improves the experience for me. Looking forward to Dispatches!
I would love to see an article using this approach focusing on the protests in Nicaragua, perhaps interviewing protesters in the cultural and revolutionary city of Monimbo, or exploring the experience of university students who have occupied local universities as a form of protest. Overall more international coverage on this topic is needed. In two months the country has gone from being a top tourist destination to a zone of state implemented terror, and in particular I have been disappointed with the New York Times lack of journalism of the situation.
1
As reporting becomes more dangerous in so many countries around the world, it would be great to learn more about reporters' personal experiences of that danger.
Love this idea and look forward to new Dispatches . . . adds "humanity" to the stories that are covered. Heaven knows we need to see the places and faces that are in such turmoil in the world today and have them reported by competent journalists.
I think that it is a great idea and look forward to reading the dispatches.
Regardless of the medium, I want my news factual and dispassionate. I like the idea of first person accounts, but I want them clearly labeled as dispatches, and not news.
1
I really do not want to read about the journalist's personal feelings or experiences. They come through anyway, although subtlely, in traditionally written news. That way the reader can draw his conclusions from what he reads. An occasional article labelled as a "journal" is fine, but I want reporting of what's going on in the world to be as objective as possible That's what makes the Times great and the one news media I can feel I can still rely on. "Old-school" is not necessarily bad. Keep the standards high!
4
"In a way the old, buttoned-down Times might once have frowned on"
Isn't it interesting how the writer
a) carefully avoids explaining why they frowned upon it (i.e. because it would give free rein to overambitious, egotistical journalists whose main motivation is to win Pulitzers and become famous);
b) casually smears a previous generation of professionals who thought they had a 'duty' (look it up snowflakes) to the facts (ditto); so, you don't need to bother about those old guys, they knew no better because they were hopelessly 'button downed' unlike all us 'woke' guys
c) pretends to ask us our opinion, whereas it's perfectly obvious he's going to do it anyway.
This is how organisations fail. Bit by bit they forget why they are there. And eventually, just before the end, their only object is to keep themselves in work.
3
I have just completed reading and reflecting on your article about the new format called "Dispatches". I have a concern about personal bias in regard to telling readers what is happening in and around the world. In these days of "fake news", it is even more important that we receive all the facts of a given situation so that we can form a rational response and take any necessary action. How will you prevent the information we need from becoming shot through with the personal perspective of the teller? Will you differentiate fact from opinion in some way that makes this difference clear?
I'm excited to see the new formats. At least in the mobile app where I read 95% of NYT stories, though, is it possible to have the tag stand out with "New Dispatch Format" or something? I didn't realize there was a difference in story types until this article. The only difference I was aware of was Opinion vs objective, curated stories.
I like this opening up of the reporter's reflections while delivering a story. The more ambiguous the story, the more a reflective, analytic mind is necessary to alert the reader that the writer is fully aware of those ambiguities. Hence, credibility is enhanced (or potentially subverted if the reflective voice is wandering or unable to put a finger on the story's hotspots).
I especially envision videos or slide shows with voiceover. I think the human voice enables reader/listener identification with the writer. Traditional journalism holds the reporter/correspondent at a distance, meant to mimic objectivity. While that too works to enhance credibility, there is also a dimension of the thinking, feeling mind that can extend that credibility if the voice remains a bit detached. On the other hand, in moments of active crisis—I'm thinking of the dog-biting-the-clothes-of-the-Civil-Rights-protester in Birmingham, May 3, 1963—a voiceover recorded at the moment could bring home to the reader/viewer, rightly, the journalist's immediate reaction. Good luck on this good idea, this adding of a qualitative dimension to journalism.
I hardly see many articles & discussions on UN being politically biased based on religious nature of the participating countries in favor of few, mainly two religions- Christianity and Islam.
UN immediately need reform from its almost open religious bias in favor of few religions (mainly Christianity and Islam) while countries with other religions as majority are falling victim of that. Such under-represented religions include Hinduism and Buddhism.
UN is notoriously political and religion is a huge issue there while dealing with many serious global crisis, including refugee or ethnic cleansing- particularly when those two dominant religions perpetrate such crimes on other people not having much voice in the UN.
So ethnic cleaning by almost all Muslim majority countries where religious minorities are basically wiped out (that include allegedly the "most democratic" Turkey) and protected regions in non-Muslim majority countries (as in Kashmir in India) hardly make even a flutter in the UN. But large number of refugees and even illegal immigration undertaken by Christian and Muslims seem to deserve full protection and resettlement- according to it.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/01/united-nations-too-christi...
1
Dispatches are great. I'd love to have a peek inside non-urban high schools in remote areas. What are 13-year-olds up to in the Congo? In Mongolia? Tibet? What are their aspirations? What's in the curriculum?
3
Bring it on. I look forward to more Dispatches.
Go for it! Just make sure you give us an indication of your bias. Straight-ahead reporting is great but we all carry a bias in the way we think, speak, and write. I want to know the feelings of the reporters as they build a story, just remember to keep us tuned in to your "feelings." Thanks
The way the Times now presents the various aspects of the news strikes me as more than adequate and definitely comprehensive. Would you call your new approach "humanizing" the news?
I wonder if you are in part trying in part to cope with the destructive forces of "fake news?" Trump's efforts to cover up his lies and terrible flaws presents all honest news sources with a major challenge.
In my humble opinion, there is no finer news provider than the Times. Change if you want (or feel you must) but be very careful.
1
I prefer a pre-Trump world where politicians didn’t have to publicly launder dirty hateful distasteful ideas in a deliberately public forum to remain front-of-mind in every news cycle. The risk is great, since pandering to Times readership’s appetite for more conflicted fiction may result in less than truthful reporting - hope the Times is prepared for “whatever the cost may be”.
Having a diversity of journalists will be essential to making this work really well. People of color, in particular, will have different POV and access to/exclusion from that of white reporters, and I want to know what they see, hear, and think.
I don't know. While I can see this approach being very interesting and providing useful insights, I worry that it is another step away from objective reporting--something we need the NYT to be a beacon of.
2