Times Clamps Down on Reporters Going on MSNBC
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/05/the-times-gives-maddow-the-cold-shoulder
The Times was wary of how viewers might perceive a down-the-middle journalist like Enrich talking politics with a mega-ideological host like Maddow. The producer, who was informed that the Times asks members of the newsroom not to appear on opinionated shows to discuss political subjects, was miffed about the cancellation, sources said.
a Times spokeswoman pointed me to the section of the Times’s “Ethical Journalism” handbook that covers broadcast media appearances: “In deciding whether to make a radio, television or Internet appearance, a staff member should consider its probable tone and content to make sure they are consistent with Times standards. Staff members should avoid strident, theatrical forums that emphasize punditry and reckless opinion-mongering.” Without question, this is not how MSNBC’s anchors see their shows (or CNN’s for that matter). And these guidelines were crafted back in the mid-aughts, a media moment that seems downright quaint compared to today. (What forum is more “strident and theatrical” than Twitter, where many a Times reporter spends hours of their day? Of course Twitter has been its own minefield for the Times.)
All these newspapers used to have foreign bureaus. Now they don’t.
They call us to explain to them what’s happening in Moscow and Cairo. Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington.
The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns.
That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing.
I'm not even sure how many people the NYT actually has on payroll, vs who gets paid per article or per word. Journalism online has definitely made a shift to pay per viewers and that certainly means sensationalism. Car chases on TV news gets viewers, ergo if you want followers/readers you write the political equivalent of car chases, train wrecks, "bombshells!".
Twitter is definitely geared towards the sensational - but it isn't by design. It's just that the sensational gets more followers quicker. And at least it is just one person's opinion at a time, and they usually have their name on it. So the economics is somewhat fair if people didn't like the person or the content they don't follow the person. FWIW, I don't do any social media at all. Newspapers on the other hand provide a sort of blanket credibility that covers everyone and everything published. Maybe retweeting other quotes or engaging in back and forth with the more deranged elements might fall inside that quaint policy manual.