I do not want to take issue with the thrust of your article: I fully endorse the view that in the absence of journalism we stare into a dangerous new abyss. But I would argue that the reason a certain type of content has become redundant over time is that is has simply not been practiced very extensively for some time.
We mourn the loss of "journalism" and yet the Western media have managed over the past ten years, to preside over seven years of a manufactured war and actively fuel a financial tsunami, while offering barely a murmur of dissent. How much worse could they have performed, I wonder? In short, we have little more than very well produced, wonderfully packaged junk for news for the longest time. They may still be called "newspapers," but I am not sure how many still deserve that description.
So now that people have become accustomed to a media diet without"roughage" and they can self-select their content, is it any wonder that they continue to opt for the shiny stuff?
The Fourth Estate was supposed to be our watchdog. But in the past decade it has done little more than sit on its well-paid arse while it watched us getting bitten. As sorry as I am that I will soon have no protection whatsoever, I just wish I could have traded in that dog for the real thing some time ago.
Cheltenham, England, UK
Mar 20 2009 - 7:16am