Saturday, March 03, 2007
The dichotomy of what we expect and what the Miami Herald actually delivers. by Geniusofdespair
I wanted to take my February 23, 2007 post “Miami Herald: Is it the buggy whip of this century?” a bit further. What did I mean when I said: "I want the Miami Herald to be a better newspaper."
My expectations of Miami Herald newspaper reporting and what and how they actually report are sometimes at odds. They seem to miss the boat. I could never figure out why I was so unhappy with coverage until I read “Censored: Media Democracy in Action 2007.”
If someone says it better than I ever could -- I can, thankfully, present their superior argument.
In the book Robert Jensen hit the nail on the head when he said:
Corporate journalists agree that they should serve as watchdogs on power but bristle, of course, at the suggestion that they fail to do that. In a society in which enormous power in concentrated in a militarized state and predatory corporations, the task for journalists is clear: “ruthless criticism of the existing order,” to borrow a phrase from a famous nineteenth-century journalist, Karl Marx. But more often toothless than ruthless, today’s supposed journalistic watchdogs in the mainstream end up being more bark than bite.
What constrains corporate journalists in their mission? In his propaganda model, Edward Herman identified key factors: The very structure of media corporations and advertising revenue of the news business as well as the so-called practices of “objective” journalism that paradoxically, hamper the news media in the pursuit of truths that matter most and make mainstream journalism less objective in a deeper sense of the term.
Now maybe you can understand more fully what I was getting at when I said in that February 23rd post:
"Is it too much to ask that the Herald should be a lean, mean fighting machine."