The strength of “brussels sprouts journalism” is that it covers important topics of public policy and politics, things that are always relevant and that affect the public every day and in many ways. There is usually always something to write about as far as these topics are concerned. On the other hand, as the article mentions, once you determine a niche in this particular field, it is difficult to find ways to cover breaking news that’s not necessarily related to your niche (i.e. The Texas Tribune’s dilemma with the Fort Hood shooting).
David Carr seems to provide a very minimal background to this trend and I still find myself wondering how this new kind of journalism developed, and what exactly the innovation is. He does seem to emphasize the possible downsides of the situation by questioning the stability of this kind of venture and field, as well as the certainty with which reporters have left their newspaper jobs for jobs at the Tribune. This may be where the bias is evident, where Mr. Carr portrays not only a journalistic skepticism but perhaps his own doubt at the longtime success of “brussels sprouts” online publications.