The “good-for-you, brussels sprouts journalism” that is expressed in the story refers to journalism that is probably not the most attractive or flashy, but is “good for you.” Specifically, stories dealing with education financing, lobbying, bureaucratic priorities, civics and state government. The strength of this type of journalism is that it is consistent in its exclusive content. Readers always know what they are going to get from this type of niche media. However, the narrow focus on news content could also be a weakness because it does not extend itself to issues that people want to hear about, such as the shootings at Fort Hood.
Carr sort of captures both sides of the problem, both for and against the type of reporting that the Texas Tribune uses. Even though he uses a lot of quotes from the side that favors the Tribune’s style, he still mentions that nobody he spoke to would say anything on the record about the “gaps in reporting.” However, he could have asked other questions dealing with the negative aspects of the style. He also doesn’t mention this until the end of his article, after he has painted the Tribune’s style as a revolutionary form of journalism in which so many people put in hard work and effort. For this, there is a bias in the story as well as unfair coverage. Carr does not capture the different sides of the problem as well as he could have, making it hard for the reader to provide background for this story.