[splittist]

An independent check on government and power? Where and when has this happened? I know this is the story journolists (sic) tell themselves, but for all of its adoption of a neutral speaking-truth-to-power self-description, the modern practice of reporting is pretty much in lock-step with (one could almost say 'produces and reproduces') the establishment.

[ilamont]

I am a huge cynic of the news industry and the way it often serves the rich, connected, and powerful, but have to acknowledge that some publications and journalists have exposed official wrongdoing and have brought down powerful people and institutions. The example that I always turn to is the expose in my hometown of abuses perpetuated by the Catholic Church in the early 2000s: http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/‎

[edanm]

What do you consider Watergate? Isn't that usually held up as an example of a check on government?

[aasarava]

Right. Or if that question isn't current enough, how about: What do you consider the Snowden revelations about the NSA?

There may well be a lot of bad, boring, or inconsequential journalism out there designed to generate click-throughs -- the push for this is partly why I left the industry -- but you can look up the list of Pulitzer Prize winners, recent and past, if you need a reminder of why we need an independent press that acts as a public service.

[splittist]

OK. I have contemplated the list of Pulitzer Prizes for Beat Reporting(http://www.pulitzer.org/bycat/Beat-Reporting) as an example, and fail to see anything that doesn't advance the dominant paradigm. If that is what 'public service' means to you then I wonder why we need a whole estate that arrogates such particular privileges to itself.

[mpyne]

> and fail to see anything that doesn't advance the dominant paradigm

Speaking truth to power is not congruent to tearing down the dominant paradigm.

If you oppose the dominant paradigm, it should be because the dominant paradigm is wrong, not because it's dominant.

[001sky]

giving voice to stories and ultimately serving as an independent check on government and power

What is this "check" then? SCOTUS checks legislation by throwing it out. Nobody has elected or consented to "journalists" having a constitional role. That being said, the constitution protects the people to talk amongst themselves, so that the electorate is itself effective, and can check power via the ballot box.

The issue at hand is the role of money in the "talk amongst yourselves" narrative. And its potential corrupting influence (bascially--buying vote for special interests and PR clients).

[calibraxis]

Watergate was an attack against half the US political establishment: one of the business party's two wings (as Chomsky puts it). Instructive because it's a minor attack against a powerful entity, so there's hell to pay.

We'd need to consider far worse attacks against the powerless.

[calibraxis]

Yes, McChesney looks behind the biases that "objective journalism" hides, with the history which puts Andreesen's article in context. (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/McChesney/Problem_Media_in...) and (http://monthlyreview.org/2000/11/01/journalism-democracy-and...)