Sunday, April 24, 2005
Old journalism - bad for democracy?
Two great posts by journalism professor Jay Rosen (NYU) that highlight the need for a market solution to convention coverage and the decreasing credibility of the press. Rosen has earlier done extensive research and written comments on the White House press corps, in the wake of the Gannon scandal. His comments reflect the archaic and anachronistic problems that face a system where MSM isn't keeping up with a changing world.
The Economist has more on the development:
This leads to one simple conclusion. If the media landscape is changing, so too must government in its way it treats journalists. I am not the only one to say that the WH press corps has played its last card and doesn't give anything more than news feed that we nowadays can get elsewhere. Just as in the 60ies when one debate between Nixon and Kennedy forever changed the way TV journalism was being treated in elections.
The Economist has more on the development:
If there is nothing special about the press, then there is nothing special
about what it does. News can be anything--including dressed-up government video
footage. And anyone can provide it, including the White House, which, through
local networks, can become a news distributor in its own right. Given the
proliferation of media outlets and the eroding of boundaries between news,
comment and punditry, someone will use government-provided information as
news.
This leads to one simple conclusion. If the media landscape is changing, so too must government in its way it treats journalists. I am not the only one to say that the WH press corps has played its last card and doesn't give anything more than news feed that we nowadays can get elsewhere. Just as in the 60ies when one debate between Nixon and Kennedy forever changed the way TV journalism was being treated in elections.
