Quote:
Originally posted by cthulu23
Would Woodward and Bernstein have been allowed to blow open Watergate today? It's the "explosive" stories that make the most impact, sometimes changing the course of history. To me, Rather is not speaking of slanted coverage, he's referencing reporting unpopular truths to a possibly hostile public. If journalism becomes beholden to advertising then we can no longer count on reporters to fulfill their societal function of informing the people in the face of power or fierce opposition.
|
Exactly. But even the facts seem to have joined one party or the other in this country these days
I think that there have been a number of recent issues that would have had Watergate-like effect if they came out back then. But today, the public is more desensitized to scandal, and the politicians are more adept at dealing with them.
I too would like to see that kind of objective impartial reporting trump the pandering to audiences and advertisers in at least some outlets. Actually there are some, but they are not well patronized, so what is the gain?
Ultimately, it may be the truth that the free market media is not structured to provide information in the way so many of us would like it to.