That's not just a come-on. It's a real question. I'd say it's probably closely related to that other question: do our politics stink?
Conor Friedersdorf reads the criticism from Ron Unz, publisher of "American Conservative," who has issued a warning about our media. They "get it wrong," says Unz in "American Pravda." Friedersdorf summarizes Unz's view of our media.
"Excessive deference to government officials..." For sure.
This deference is both a cause and an effect of a similar impulse within the American people, who want the media to rally around officials in times of crisis.
It is also partly explained by the fact that journalistic decision-makers often live and socialize in the same ruling-class circles as the people they cover, and are inclined to give them the benefits of certain doubts, like the presumption that they're good people doing their honest best in a difficult situation.
___
"Lots of relatively well-paid journalists duplicate one another's work ..."
The White House press corps is an illustrative example.
___
People rely on television. Big mistake. It's "a terrible medium for obtaining good information..."
The cost of producing quality broadcast journalism, as opposed to inane interview and debate segments, the obsession with ratings, and the practice of hiring on-air "talent" for their appearance and charisma more than for their intellect all inevitably result in a poor product. Every network has talented producers and anchors who are a credit to their profession. The fact that they can excel, even under the aforementioned constraints, is impressive. But their work is the exception to the rule: If you want better journalism, turn off the TV and start reading.
___
"Watchdog journalism" isn't getting the attention and investment it deserves.
In large swaths of America, newspapers remain the primary watchdog on local government. Hugely corrupt officials abusing their power in egregious ways is a story any newspaper ought to write about, and failure to do so is accurately regarded as missing a huge story. The city council of Bell, California, misappropriated millions of dollars of public funds, and did so in a way that any competent beat reporter should have caught. Yet the Los Angeles Times didn't break the story until the abuse had been going on for years. Why? The problem wasn't incompetent reporters -- it was the fact that the L.A. Times had no beat reporter dedicated to the city, had closed the bureau that used to direct coverage in that part of Los Angeles County, and had lost institutional knowledge of the area in the course of layoffs over the years.
___
Business fraud (Madoff level and beyond) gets little attention.
Politics is a partisan team sport, and it is easy to imagine Democrats or Republicans closing ranks and protecting their own, despite damage to society. Furthermore, success or failure in public policies is often ambiguous and subject to propagandistic spin. But investors in a fraudulent company lose their money and therefore have an enormous incentive to detect those risks, with the same being true for business journalists. If the media cannot be trusted to catch and report simple financial misconduct, its reliability on more politically charged matters will surely be lower."
There's more, including affirmation that, on the whole, there is a slight bias towards the liberal point of view in our media.
But that (I believe... strongly) is because America, though politically conservative compared to many adult democracies, is culturally liberal.
In the end, we are left with a real problem with media coverage of corporations and our financial institutions in all their activities. Bring back the beady-eyed muckrakers. Without the rake, American journalism is not only conservative and weak but wholly irresponsible, maybe corrupt and maybe lazy as well. But certainly very, very stinky.
