Brussels Sprouts for New Journalism

David Carr’s article creatively discusses a new platform for reporting and journalistic media under the format created to be brussels sprouts journalism. This form of journalism involves the “shaving off” of certain aspects of the news, and only keeping what is good for public readership. I think ‘brussels sprouts’ will provide a stable, responsible and effective style of journalism that only includes stories that are ‘healthy’ and necessary for journalists and viewers alike. It will be the opportunity to cover breaking and important stories without the pull from other ‘colorful’ stories. On the contrary, the style of brussels sprouts will leave no room for creative journalism, and reporting will become way to serious. With the upcoming of brussels sprouts journalism, there will be no platform for what I would call ‘runaway news’ news in which individuals can report on the fun and interesting things in life and giving the audience a means to ‘runaway’ from the pressures and concerns of the society.
Carr’s lede was anecdotal, and that was very important in capturing our attention as he continued to article about the new model for journalism. Using Texas Tribune as a example of the bigger journalistic microcosm, he was able to strategically give his audience an explanation of this new found journalism. By mentioning the financial concerns of the media, the gap in journalism, and the fact that news outlets are constantly sharing the same breaking stories, he indirectly speaks of the problems facing media on a general scale. Carr includes a significant amount of figures and background information that makes his piece appear more accurate, and for this story that sort of information is in need for specifics.
I think David Carr is demonstrating some bias in his story. It is interesting because you really need to read between the lines because his bias does not stand out. There was one example when he talks about the gaps in reporting and that he could not find anyone to comment on that segment of the story. For a New York Times reporter I find that very hard to believe. Also, the majority of quotes and commentary from the people interviewed  mainly promote the change for new journalism but I don’t remember reading about anyone wanting to keep journalism the way it is now. How can a writer not be bias when they are only featuring one side to the story? The article as a whole was very informative, a kind of opinionated news piece, but what would have been even more interesting was to see the ‘debate’ on the prospective platform of new media.