A journalistic longjump

A journalistic longjump

: Buried in a NY Times story on a battle over operating control of the German newsweekly Der Spiegel is this sleight-of-typing-hand:

Spiegel, which also produces television programs and has a popular Web site, is solidly profitable. It had record circulation of 1.1 million in 2003, as a result of its skeptical coverage of the Iraq war.

How is that said without attribution or justification? Could it be that circulation was up because of news?

  • http://radio.weblogs.com/0107946 Ed Cone

    What’s the problem? What the Times calls “skeptical coverage of the Iraq war,” many of us call “news.”

  • slim

    Of course NOT Jeff. If Der Speigel’s coverage had not been “skeptical” their readership would have been LESS (or so the Times would have us believe).

  • C Bennett

    An interesting — and consistent — statistical phenomenon is that when the list of “most admired,” “least admired,” and those with the “most mentions” in the news are lined up, the correlation among them is typically about .7 or so — very high and positive. It just means that all three list-labels are proxies for name recognition. And when there is news, interest in news-conveyers goes up, irrespective of the ‘spin’.
    A more accurate version would be to say that the paper’s circulation went up “as a result of … the Iraq war.” That news wave floated many boats of many different shapes — from Fox News to al Jazeera.