CHARLIE

domenica 29 Marzo 2026

Raccontare i giornali

Edmund Lee, ex giornalista del New York Times, ha scritto sulla sua newsletter su Substack una riflessione interessante sulla mancanza di fiducia nei confronti dei giornali e dei giornalisti. La sua tesi, tra le altre cose, è che si debba soprattutto alla poca conoscenza all’esterno del lavoro giornalistico, e dell'”umanità” dei suoi processi. E al circolare di luoghi comuni superficiali e che generalizzano quel lavoro immaginandolo al servizio di un unico condiviso interesse. I giornali, dice Lee, dovrebbero raccontare di più il proprio lavoro: altrimenti le persone se ne costruiscono un’idea da soli, attingendo un po’ ai film e alle serie e un po’ alla tendenza contemporanea a vedere tutto in chiavi dietrologiche e diffidenti.

“There is no “the media.” No monthly meetings. No Star Chamber under Eighth Avenue. We’re just a supper club of hungry reporters trying to beat one another on a story. Our shared language is short: This matters and I got it. That’s all we care about. That’s the job. I know earnest mottos won’t quell the riot. You can feel it, the need for a hidden hand. Conspiracy is our new religion. It’s just easier, more legible, to believe newspapers march to the beat of an invisible drum” .

“Because no one understands how this works. The process is opaque, and, worse, counterintuitive. Reporting, editing, headlines, photo choice, social posts, video edits — all invisible to the reader. We sometimes have a secret language: headlines that read “…Is Said to…” means anonymous source. In my last job for The Times, I learned how wide the gap is. One paying subscriber thought the paper was owned by Rupert Murdoch. (He owns The Wall Street Journal and Fox News.) Others thought “bureau chief” meant government agent. This one killed me: anonymous sources are anonymous to us, that information simply drifts in and lands, unchecked, in print.

It doesn’t work that way. Reporters name their sources to editors. They explain how they know what they know. Editors push: What’s the motive? Why not on the record? Can we confirm it?
Sometimes it still doesn’t run. What makes it into print under a veil has usually survived the most scrutiny. The reader never sees that”.