Personal tools
 
Views

Argument: Leaving journalism to the markets risks degrading the trade

From Debatepedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 18:50, 1 May 2009 (edit)
Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)
(Supporting quotations)
← Previous diff
Current revision (09:00, 1 July 2010) (edit)
Lenkahabetinova (Talk | contribs)
(Parent debate)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
==Parent debate== ==Parent debate==
-*[[Debate: Should governments subsidize journalism?]]+*[[Debate: Should governments bailout journalism?]]
- +
==Supporting quotations== ==Supporting quotations==
[http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-brooks9-2009apr09,1,4863536.column Rosa Brooks. "Bail out journalism". Los Angeles Times. April 9, 2009]: "Years of foolish policies have left us with a choice: We can bail out journalism, using tax dollars and granting licenses in ways that encourage robust and independent reporting and commentary, or we can watch, wringing our hands, as more and more top journalists are laid off or bail out, leaving us with nothing in our newspapers but ads, entertainment features and crossword puzzles." [http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-brooks9-2009apr09,1,4863536.column Rosa Brooks. "Bail out journalism". Los Angeles Times. April 9, 2009]: "Years of foolish policies have left us with a choice: We can bail out journalism, using tax dollars and granting licenses in ways that encourage robust and independent reporting and commentary, or we can watch, wringing our hands, as more and more top journalists are laid off or bail out, leaving us with nothing in our newspapers but ads, entertainment features and crossword puzzles."

Current revision

Parent debate

Supporting quotations

Rosa Brooks. "Bail out journalism". Los Angeles Times. April 9, 2009: "Years of foolish policies have left us with a choice: We can bail out journalism, using tax dollars and granting licenses in ways that encourage robust and independent reporting and commentary, or we can watch, wringing our hands, as more and more top journalists are laid off or bail out, leaving us with nothing in our newspapers but ads, entertainment features and crossword puzzles."


John Nichols and Robert McChesney. "The Death and Life of Great American Newspapers". Nation. March 18, 2009: "But it is not just newspapers that are in crisis; it is the institution of journalism itself. By any measure, journalism is missing from most commercial radio. TV news operations have become celebrity- and weather-obsessed "profit centers" rather than the journalistic icons of the Murrow and Cronkite eras. Cable channels "fill the gap" with numberless pundits and "business reporters," who got everything about the last decade wrong but now complain that the government doesn't know how to set things right. Cable news is defensible only because of the occasional newspaper reporter moonlighting as a talking head. But what happens when the last reporter stops collecting a newspaper paycheck and goes into PR or lobbying? She'll leave cable an empty vessel and take the public's right to know anything more than a rhetorical flourish with her.

[...] Of course, there are still tremendous journalists doing outstanding work, but they battle a system increasingly pushing in the opposite direction. (That is why some of the most powerful statements about our current circumstances come in the form of books, like Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine; or documentaries, like Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine; or beat reporting in magazines, like that of Jane Mayer and Seymour Hersh at The New Yorker.) The news media blew the coverage of the Iraq invasion, spoon-feeding us lies masquerading as fact-checked verities. They missed the past decade of corporate scandals. They cheered on the housing bubble and genuflected before the financial sector (and Gilded Age levels of wealth and inequality) as it blasted debt and speculation far beyond what the real economy could sustain. Today they do almost no investigation into where the trillions of public dollars being spent by the Federal Reserve and Treasury are going but spare not a moment to update us on the "Octomom." They trade in trivia and reduce everything to spin, even matters of life and death. ... The old corporate media system choked on its own excess. We should not seek to restore or re-create it. We have to move forward to a system that creates a journalism far superior to that of the recent past. ... We can do exactly that--but only if we recognize and embrace the necessity of government intervention. ... Only government can implement policies and subsidies to provide an institutional framework for quality journalism."

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.