I did a quick search for a debate on this and didn’t see one. Why has have the media stopped asking members of the government to explain themselves? Why are they so willing to accept the p.r. answers and spin? At one point, Jefferson even suggested that the press be mailed to the citizens free, he was so sure that the government needed to be checked by that institution. What are some theories that explain why they don’t hound the office holders like they used to? If I am correct, the White House press conferences are now just a series of questions that are asked according to a pre-arranged list of journalists that the President approves. How has this happened?
It’s cheaper.
Since when is the press supposed to be a “spokesman”? And for which “the people”, precisely?
I thought the press was supposed to report facts. Sure, they’re welcome to publish opinion pieces as well, but to consider advocacy of some sort (other than for truth vs falsehood) as the press’s “role” is not my understanding.
As an addendum to kimstu’s short but spot on comment: as newspapers continue whining about craigslist gutting their funds (which it certainly has—the loss of quality classifieds in out papers in SF, the first CL location is fairly marked), we can only assume that newspapers will continue losing staff…which will invariably lead to worse reporting.
I think the OP was trying to differentiate between the press being a mouthpiece for government versus an independant entity which uncovers truth. If it continues the trend of verbatim repetition of spun facts, etc., it ceases to be legitimate. The press’s “role” is an independant watchdog, not yet another way to pass on convoluted “facts”
Why should a press that is owned by corporations not favor a government that favors corporations?
Because a press is primarily interested in selling its products and making a profit. The idea that “the press” is somehow just a stooge for the government is a premise in the OP that I reject. I’d like to see the OP provide some actual evidence for that premise before we accept it. And saying, in effect, that “the press doesn’t report stories that I’m interested in” is not evidence.
Perhaps not an advocate for the people, no. But the press has traditionally been seen as the “fourth estate” - a non-governmental check on the three branches of government. I wholeheartedly agree with the assertion that they have, in the main, abandoned any sort of practice that would warrant such a designation.
I’m not so sure they aren’t trying for objectivity but as with say the White House for example Scott McClellan wouldn’t give his dying mother a straight answer and reporters aren’t given the opportunity to keep insisting they’re given a meaningful response. If I was working there I’m sure I’d have my press pass revoked after the first day. I think it’s ridiculous how little accountability there is. Maybe the ‘people’ need to back up the press and insist the government gives us some answers.
Because money makes the mare go.
Are you interested in these stories? http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/index.html
Cite? AFAIK, the White House has always had the discretion to decide who gets into the press room, and the press secretary has always had the choice of which reporters to call on and can ignore any he wishes. The questions, OTOH, have never been pre-scripted.
Meh. That site is so slanted to the left that I don’t consider them to be objective observers. The sad fact is that most people would rather read about Michael Jackson or American Idol than about “#5: The Wholesale Giveaway of Our Natural Resources”.
If you want to claim that reporters are lazy, that might be a reasonable argument. But when you have as prestigious a news organization as CBS/60 Minutes airing a story highly negative to Bush based on fake documents, it’s hard for me to believe that the press is being overly obesqueous.
You mean from it’s noble good old days like when altruistic people like William Randolph Hearst only printed true, factual stories?
The headlines are certainly tendentious. OTOH, these are indisputably (1) very important stories (2) to which the so-called liberal media has given surprisingly little attention. Don’t you think that signifies something?
You gotta remember, John Mace considers anything he disagrees with to be “slanted to the left”. 
With virtually all news outlets corporate owned where else are people going to go for any news at all? I have trouble understanding how anyone can look at GW’s domestic record and the press coverage and say that they haven’t handled him with kid gloves on his domestic agenda.
You think they’re important. I might think they’re important, too, but what difference does that make if they don’t sell newspapers? And I don’t subscribe to the “liberal media” meme. I think there’s a plethora of media outlets out there spanning the political spectrum. And with the internet, you can find stories about anything you like. In fact, if you think the maintream press is neglecting stories that many people want to read about, why not consider that a great busines oportunity and exploit it?
I have trouble understanding how anyone can make the argument the “the media” has suddenly become far more obsequious toward the White House than in past administrations, without providing careful documentation that this is so. If Iraq is the major point of contention, let’s remember that we got into one hell of a prolonged conflict in Vietnam (largely under Democratic Administrations) based heavily on false pretenses, bad intelligence and spin that took “the media” and the public a long time to dissect and expose.
Is it something brand new the the White House press secretary spins and dodges? Anyone remember Ron “That statement is inoperative” Ziegler, Nixon’s press stooge?
Maybe it’s just because I’m a regular reader of the commie pinko disloyal New York Times, but I’ve been getting a regular dosage of the evils of Bushdom for years now. And my more middle-of-the-road city paper, when it isn’t reprinting Times stuff is churning out documentation of its own. This stuff isn’t exactly a secret.
What the OP and like minds seem to want is pitched battles at press conferences and briefings, and a never-ending blast of outrage in the news sections. That’s never been the traditional role of the press (despite increasing blurring of fact and opinion presentation in news stories) and shouldn’t start being that way.
I do believe that I specifically said “domestic agenda.”
We needed a careful analysis in the major outlets, TV and print, as to the effects of the tax cuts and the distribution of its benefits. We didn’t get it. There is no constant attention paid to the plain fact is that the tax cuts have ballooned the deficit. The much touted stimulation of the economy has not resulted in enough tax receipt increast to pay for the tax cuts.
Environmental regulation weakening gets little attention and no analysis as to its effects. Changes in the interpretation of regulations on environmental protection are slipped in with little publicity by the supposed watchdog for the public.
The failures in many programs such as No Child Left Behind because of lack of presidential support for sufficient funding are barely mentioned.
The TV and print press gave little space to the horrendous understatement of the cost of the Medicare Drug Program. And there wasn’t a lot of publicity as to how lucrative it will be for the drug industry. And the press also failed to hold Congress accountable for not rising up in wrath at being conned when the true cost of the program came to light.
It appears to me like pretty much of a free ride for GW as far as holding his feet to the fire and evaluating performance in office is concerned.