It has been some time since I have written here. Not necessarily for lack of content or motivation, but mainly for writer's block. And I do not think that the problem is solved today, though I think I'm overdue for writing.
My sources of input these days are mostly bits and pieces about the news, and occasionally I will watch the Fox News production Fox News Watch, which is a panel of four commentators and the emcee who directs the show. Dubbed as a show that "covers the coverage," I find it somewhat less introspective than necessary.
Nonetheless, the show does often provide interesting insights about what these particular folks, at least, feel the purpose of the media is. In particular, it seems that they find the purpose of media is almost a moral one—that the news that deserves national attention should get it, to the end that some change would be implemented. I suppose good examples of this kind of coverage are Hurricaine Katrina and Iraq, both of which have cost the administration dearly in P.R. points.
For what it's worth, I think that Freedom of the Press was envisioned in the same way. Press was seen as a safeguard against tyrannical government and a means for mobilizing the population. In this sense, it is not surprising to find that news has an anti-government slant; that's basically why it's there.
It's interesting to find, however, that while the press originally was envisioned as a tool for keeping the government out of the affairs of the governed (e.g., stop taxing your people), it has transformed into an entity that invites the government to expand. While it is often on moral grounds—e.g., universal health care—I find the change profound (and unfortunate).
First because the moral grounds often aren't. Second, because the solutions undermine the moral fabric of society. Community—not government—should be the first responder in crisis. The press would do well to shame the citizenry into action.
