VandeHarris: “Christianity Today”‘s Take

Hey, why not?

    The Post doesn’t have to be this way. The once-great newspaper could actually find itself in a debate that is relevant to the way we live now instead of marinating in the old tropes of the 1960s. Recently Post columnist Michael Kinsley published a piece in Time, “Do Newspapers Have a Future?” He declares the end of newspapers—at least, in hard copy form. All is being lost in the tsunami of blogging and the internet. Yet don’t despair: “There is room between the New York Times and for new forms that liberate journalism from its encrusted conceits while preserving its standards, like accuracy,” Kinsley writes.

    “I’m not sure what that new form will look like” Kinsley admits. “But it might resemble the better British papers today (such as the one I work for, the Guardian). The Brits have never bought into the American separation of reporting and opinion. They assume that an intelligent person, paid to learn about some subject, will naturally develop views about it. And they consider it more truthful to express those views than to suppress them in the name of objectivity.”

    This is the direction that could make more people buy the Post— because the way it is now, we know exactly what is going to be in the paper before we crack it open; that is, if we crack it open.

Read more here.