Like the news itself, an analysis that must be read with a critical eye.
A professor makes what will seem to some a radical suggestion to disconnect journalism from news, but he belabors the obvious in making the argument and offers little suggestion for a business model that might support his vision of journalism’s future.
NYU scholar and author Stephens (The Rise of the Image, the Fall of the Word, 1998, etc.) contends that the future of journalism no longer lies within the hallowed ground of reporting, objectivity and facts. Facts are everywhere in the age of the Internet, as is news, and almost all of what journalism once commodified is available for free. So, what now, and what’s next? The author argues for the sort of analysis (he prefers interpretation) that is in fact widely practiced and that goes beyond who, what, when and where to focus on why and how. His “call for more interpretation in journalism” further suggests that the future of journalism is in the hands of specialists—maybe even scholars and public intellectuals—where journalism has traditionally regarded its reporters as generalists. What we need are “wisdom journalists, looking not for news but for the meaning and consequences of that news.” Editors have generally been moving in that direction anyway, as social media has made even the 24/7 TV news cycle seem a little dated. Further, the Web is rife with analysis and interpretation—journalism that provides expertise, depth, context and substance—as well as opinion and “facts” (some of which are skewed or prove to be simply untrue). Stephens’ confidence that readers “haven’t had all that much difficulty filtering out the foolishness” isn’t necessarily warranted, as spin becomes increasingly polarized and lies go viral. But even if each of us is qualified to serve as a gatekeeper, where is the revenue to support the wisdom journalism of those who might have once been employed by the sort of news organizations that this book suggests are obsolete?
Like the news itself, an analysis that must be read with a critical eye.Pub Date: April 29, 2014
ISBN: 978-0-231-15938-8
Page Count: 256
Publisher: Columbia Univ.
Review Posted Online: Feb. 15, 2014
Kirkus Reviews Issue: March 1, 2014
BOOK REVIEW
BOOK REVIEW
Stricter than, say, Bergen Evans or W3 ("disinterested" means impartial — period), Strunk is in the last analysis...
Privately published by Strunk of Cornell in 1918 and revised by his student E. B. White in 1959, that "little book" is back again with more White updatings.
Stricter than, say, Bergen Evans or W3 ("disinterested" means impartial — period), Strunk is in the last analysis (whoops — "A bankrupt expression") a unique guide (which means "without like or equal").Pub Date: May 15, 1972
ISBN: 0205632645
Page Count: 105
Publisher: Macmillan
Review Posted Online: Oct. 28, 2011
Kirkus Reviews Issue: May 1, 1972
This is not the Nutcracker sweet, as passed on by Tchaikovsky and Marius Petipa. No, this is the original Hoffmann tale of 1816, in which the froth of Christmas revelry occasionally parts to let the dark underside of childhood fantasies and fears peek through. The boundaries between dream and reality fade, just as Godfather Drosselmeier, the Nutcracker's creator, is seen as alternately sinister and jolly. And Italian artist Roberto Innocenti gives an errily realistic air to Marie's dreams, in richly detailed illustrations touched by a mysterious light. A beautiful version of this classic tale, which will captivate adults and children alike. (Nutcracker; $35.00; Oct. 28, 1996; 136 pp.; 0-15-100227-4)
Pub Date: Oct. 28, 1996
ISBN: 0-15-100227-4
Page Count: 136
Publisher: Harcourt
Review Posted Online: May 19, 2010
Kirkus Reviews Issue: Aug. 15, 1996
BOOK REVIEW
BOOK REVIEW
© Copyright 2025 Kirkus Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Follow
Popular in this Genre
We can’t wait for you to join Kirkus!
It’s free and takes less than 10 seconds!
Already have an account? Log in.
OR
Sign in with GoogleTrouble signing in? Retrieve credentials.
Welcome Back!
OR
Sign in with GoogleTrouble signing in? Retrieve credentials.
