"It's not about us."

We've been arguing about 1st person journalism a long time.

"Frank Sinatra Has A Cold" is first person.

"Hub Fans Bid Kid Adieu" is first person.

"Silent Season of a Hero" is first person weirdly rendered into 3rd person.

"The Last American Hero is Junior Johnson. Yes!" First person.

When it works it works.

But I'm not sure that the NY Times Magazine is all that relevant to a discussion of why or how the New York Times is struggling.

 

Many posters here are smarter than I am, but you’re not among them.

 

Exactly.

And they missed the story in much the same way they missed Trump. The paper has giant blind spots at the margins. Anything outside its narrow range of convention is missed or misunderstood.

And of course they don't take seriously anything they haven't already taken seriously. Catch-22.

 

MOST posters here are smarter than you are. And typefitter is among them.

He nailed you to a T. You take the quick pot shots, say nothing of substance, and duck back into the weeds.

Hey, it was worth showing ignored content for a few minutes just for the chance to say that.

 

It's a tactic. But it can only be done well -- that is to say, seamlessly and with genuine feeling and inclusion by the person -- with talent.

I know I didn't like the Dylann Roof piece as a first-person story. It seemed and read like the writer just inserted herself into it, rather than that she was actually there, or was really close to the story (although I believe she was close to the church and the story; it just didn't read/feel that way). That's where the talent, the ability to do it well, has to come in.

 

People apparently like it well enough that if you Google "Dylann Roof story," it's the first return.

There's a whole huge young readership out there that expects stories to be first person - and doesn't trust the ones that aren't. That's a generational problem journalism businesses need to resolve.

 

I cannot believe I'm not the recipient of this message.