A new book examining civil rights coverage demonstrates that the best reporting sometimes requires journalists to toss objectivity out the window.
The New York Times editors do a service by covering right-wingers: It would make sense to similarly cover progressives. Why don't they?
Bush's contempt for the truth and for those whose job it is to find it
has created an existential crisis for mainstream media.
Do newspapers really need special pages for political pronouncements, stentorian tone and candidate endorsements?
Journalism's in crisis, crushed by Wall Street and tarnished by a
failure of nerve. As newspapers die and fake news proliferates, who will
provide reliable information vital to a functioning democracy?
How can the MSM maintain they hold themselves to higher standards than
the Drudge-driven political blogosphere when they ape its most
The notion that the function of journalists is to explain "the truth" is about as quaint as America's participation in the Geneva Conventions.