- The American Conservative - https://www.theamericanconservative.com -

If You Hate The NYTimes And Hannity…

… then the Deseret News has an online newspaper for you. [1]Excerpt:

“We heard a lot of people saying, ‘We read The New York Times and we watch Sean Hannity, and we hate them both,’” Gilbert said of how Deseret News approached the development of its national content.

“They said, ‘We admire the rigor of The New York Times, but we don’t hear any of our values reflected there. Somehow we hear some of our values in Sean Hannity, but it feels angry and polemic. They were mashing together what the market wasn’t providing, which was a thoughtful news source that was journalistic and rigorous and accurate but was asking questions that really resonated to things that mattered to their family.”

By staying away from an explicit focus on its own religion, Gilbert said Deseret News hopes to create a broad dedicated readership. “This is a huge audience, but the second you go denominational, they fragment,” he said. “Mormons read Mormon content, Catholics read Catholic content, Baptists read Baptist content.”

Here’s a link to the site. [2]It looks sharp. I’ll read the content for a week or two, and, well, we’ll see. I think this is a great idea, though, and I wish them well.

(Thanks to the reader who sent the this in.)

Advertisement
20 Comments (Open | Close)

20 Comments To "If You Hate The NYTimes And Hannity…"

#1 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On April 15, 2014 @ 6:52 pm

Sounds like it could be the next Christian Science Monitor.

#2 Comment By SDS On April 15, 2014 @ 7:18 pm

Aren’t we comparing apples and oranges here?
Even if the NYT editorial page is daft; their reporting is at least legit….
No serious person can say the same for most of FOX; and ANYTHING related to Hannity…
(Not with a straight face; anyway)
Another serious new source would be good; I’ll check it out for sure…..

#3 Comment By charles cosimano On April 15, 2014 @ 7:26 pm

Accuracy? Rigor? The New York Times?

Words fail me.

#4 Comment By Gromaticus On April 15, 2014 @ 7:34 pm

Those sneaky devils…going after the vastly under served demographic of Times readers and Hannity watchers who continue to do so whilst despising both. I hope their 9 new readers enjoy the content aimed specifically at them.

FWIW If their stated goal is to be “journalistically rigorous and accurate” yet the first article I read states “Rep. Frank Wolf is in his 17th term in Congress. He represents a part of Virginia just across the river from Washington, D.C.” they may want to add geographically literate into the mix.

#5 Comment By SteveL On April 15, 2014 @ 7:35 pm

I see several stories on Utah. That seems to undercut its broader audience already. Which shouldn’t be surprising, the first tab after “Home” is “Utah”.

I’d read something similar, if it were a slightly more conservative version of USA Today, with more rigor. This is too regional for me to visit on a regular basis.

[NFR: You may be right. After I posted that, I went back to read the page more carefully, and it really wasn’t very interesting. — RD]

#6 Comment By Calidali On April 15, 2014 @ 7:51 pm

Pretty refreshing approach that I hope works.

Now, if we could only get our political parties to focus on “family, faith, education, care for the poor, … and financial responsibility.”

#7 Comment By calder On April 15, 2014 @ 8:15 pm

Please don’t mention the NYT and Hannity in the same sentence except to state that the former is a News Organization while the latter is a Fox Operative.

#8 Comment By Will in Mississippi On April 15, 2014 @ 8:42 pm

I take Charles point on rigor and accuracy, but if you adapted the parallel in the header by substituting the New York Review of Books for the NYT I think the publication would be Chronicles…or at least the magazine about a decade ago.

#9 Comment By Liam On April 15, 2014 @ 9:02 pm

I was just thinking of the CSM. A generation ago, it was a very respected broadsheet, one of three Boston dailies.

#10 Comment By anori On April 15, 2014 @ 9:16 pm

The problem is that Hannity is not the model for what a conservative journalist should be like. Bill O’Reilly is at least somewhat brighter, but it seems like he has to _act_ dumb in order to keep his audience. There’s a niche to be filled here somewhere, but this country is so polarized now that I doubt it will ever happen.

#11 Comment By Puller58 On April 15, 2014 @ 9:17 pm

The Gray Lady and the infomercial fraudster. Quite a pair.

#12 Comment By Henri James On April 15, 2014 @ 9:20 pm

You do know how to get me to click on something. Hope the Deseret News does OK!

#13 Comment By christine johnson On April 15, 2014 @ 9:25 pm

Yes, that is hilarious to say the NYT has any rigor. You must not read the incisive collection of “NYT corrects” at powerlineblog.com. You should get out more.

#14 Comment By Floridan On April 15, 2014 @ 10:21 pm

“We heard a lot of people saying, ‘We read The New York Times and we watch Sean Hannity, and we hate them both,’”

Really? A lot of people read the NYT and watch Hannity and hate them both? What kind of dopes consider these their only choices?

#15 Comment By stef On April 16, 2014 @ 8:19 am

It looks like pretty weak journalistic sauce, with a heavy Utah / Mormon focus. Kind of like Pinterest for news.

#16 Comment By Elijah On April 16, 2014 @ 9:45 am

Good luck to them. Speaking only for myself, I’m interested in a fairly wide perspective, one of the reasons I like the RealClear sites – you can read liberal and conservative articles with a click between them.

I hate the thought that “Catholics only read Catholics” and “Baptists read only Baptists”. For Pete’s sake, get your head out of the echo chamber once in a while.

#17 Comment By SusanMcN On April 16, 2014 @ 11:04 am

While I’m intrigued by the topics they choose to cover, I’m put off by the anemic articles themselves. Great idea for a crunchy con like me, but it needs more journalistic muscle behind it.

#18 Comment By Ken On April 16, 2014 @ 1:08 pm

Thanks for posting on this. Reading a couple of articles was a through the looking glass experience for an NYT reading liberal like myself. The piece on the declining rate of homicide in the US, for example, started with a brief bio of a former gangster who is now a Bible-reading family man for human interest, then went to the work of a Harvard sociologist, writing about the importance of family and values in preventing violence and gang involvement, then closed with the former gangster. This formula is one I recognize from the Times, but reflects a very different world-view. It reminds me of how much the world-view of the Times, which simultaneously strikes me as natural and creates and reenforces my sense of what is natural, is shaped by assumptions that I rarely revisit or reassess and are not shared by you or most readers of your blog. I suppose the Times seems to you and many of your readers as being as insular and self-validating as The Desert News seems to me. It is a wonder we can participate in a single political community.

[NFR: That’s a good point. I am a Times subscriber, and have been reading it daily for most of my adult life. And yes, the worldview of the Times is incredibly insular and self-validating. I think what galls people like me about it is the pretense the Times editors and reporters have that they are more cosmopolitan than most. The Times is a great newspaper, no doubt about it, and probably the best newspaper in America. But that does not mean it is without serious failings. I think their worst failing is that they don’t seem to go about their work with a knowledge that they have a particular viewpoint, one that dismisses or unfairly diminishes those of a significant number of Americans. Except when they do: in 2011, Bill Keller, the former Times editor, [3] that the Times didn’t even try to play it straight on its coverage of social and cultural issues. As the Times’s Ross Douthat said in his column on Sunday, with socially liberal institutions (like, he might have said, the Times), it’s not so much the progressivism that’s so toxic, it’s the hypocrisy. — RD]

#19 Comment By Matt On April 16, 2014 @ 4:28 pm

Please don’t mention the NYT and Hannity in the same sentence except to state that the former is a News Organization while the latter is a Fox Operative.

I thought you were going to say, “don’t mention them in the same sentence, lest the result be a matter/antimatter annihilation”.

#20 Comment By roynedla On April 17, 2014 @ 5:17 pm

@SteveL Interesting, I don’t see very many regional/Utah-based stories at all. Maybe you accidentally clicked over to the local edition? The idea is fascinating to me, and the 10 Commandments series is genuinely interesting. Rooting for this.