LaughingWolf sees serious problems with the current state of Journalism. After the recent Iraq war and the NY Times scandals, it's hard to argue. So:
bq. "The process of reforming, of saving journalism is something that needs and deserves thought, care, and serious discussion. It requires distinguishing between the press, The Media, and Entertainment; and, it requires some knowledge of how we got into this situation"
He provided his thoughts on all of the above in a series of posts over the last few weeks. If you start here, you can now follow links that will take you right through the entire series. As a capper of sorts, I recommend a very fine post about what he thinks the writer/editor relationship _should_ be like. Lots of worthwhile & thought provoking stuff - good journalism is an important issue for a free society.
UPDATE: Jeff Jarvis has some wise words as well.
A couple of reactions to LaughingWolf's remarkable and highly informative series on journalism:
1. Disregarding clear factual errors, I'm not so certain that there is such a thing as pure or even near pure objectivity in reporting. I'm sure that this is an old debate. But even if the facts are correct, there will always be selectivity of information and, equally important, selectivity of presentation. I think of the European press's emphasis on Israeli attacks in the Palestinian/disputed territories, as opposed to greater U.S. press emphasis on suicide/homocide/martyrdom/militant attacks against Israeli civilians.
2. Another problem with objectivity and balance is that it can give equal weight to two (or more) versions and interpretions of facts, when one (or more) of these versions and interpretations is clearly erroneous or ridiculous. It thus tends to give equal status to the ridiculous. An extreme form of this would be giving equal time to the crime victim and the perpetrator to hear each's point of view. To use the same example as above, some might say that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could be an example of this, but then you have to identify who is the perpetrator and who is the victim.
3. My skepticism regarding the limits of objective, balanced journalism makes me perhaps less alergic to advocacy journalism, as long as it is clear that such advocacy is an objective of the publication. I tend to skim newspapers assuming that much of what I read is incomplete, biased or plain false, and look more for a balance of views on the op-ed pages.
4. LaughingWolf's analysis of the function and potential of the blogosphere is by far the best description I have read to date. As he rightly points out, it is not just the ability to marshal facts and weed out falsehoods that is of interest, it is also its ability to provide contrasting presentations, interpretations and commentary. This can be achieved within a single site (Instapundit - an otherwise excellent site- is probably not the best model because of its solo control and lack of reader comments) or "competing" sites that contain some degree of advocacy, usually openly so (or at least obviously so). Another advantage of the blogosphere is, as LaughingWolf points out, extremely low entry costs. In contrast to traditional media that look to turn a profit, sometimes relying on the reader's credulity to monger the latest scandal, bloggers don't face the same constraints.
5. Final note: To those who claim that the U.S. media is monolithically controlled by corporate capitalism seeking to stifle dissent, I say they have not lived abroad (and perhaps have just not lived). American media, in terms of sheer quantity, quality and diversity of information and views, is the best in the world.