What is the role of the media?

After reading David Gregory's justification for the GOP-controlled media's (and his) failure to do their job (here), I'm wondering, what exactly is the job of the media?

What can we rightfully expect from the media?

Please post your ideas in reply and later I will make a poll based on them.

..the job of the media is to make a profit for its owners.

Thus, the 'deep pockets' of advertisers fund the media based on whatever criteria those advertisers use to provide such funding. It's NOT necessarily the cost-effectiveness of that advertising, either.

You'll see a Return to Skepticism come January 21, even over things that seem to be settled facts. We're already getting a taste of it from the Blagojevich/Obama story. In spite of the fact that the prosecutor and Blagojevich's office both deny that there were any connections or untoward contacts with the Obama campaign and staff (as well as Obama's own denials), "questions linger" about just what that might mean. The scrutiny leveled at this non-story, applied retroactively to just about any scandal of the Bush years would be quite welcome, but it is not to be. Only Right Wing Echo Chamber points get amplified.

1. Publish clear, un-slanted and factual reports of international, national or local events.

2. Publish a spectrum of opinion on same, clearly cited as editorial opinion or comment.

3. Publish clear, un-slanted and factual reports of international, national or local politics.

4. Publish a spectrum of opinion on same, clearly cited as editorial opinion or comment.

5. Engage the public in regards to political participation and civic involvement, internationally, nationally or locally.

6. Serve as a bridge, when appropriate, between the public and its elected politicians and public bureaucracies.

... does this include investigative reports?

"Publish clear, un-slanted and factual reports of international, national or local politics."

... I think there is a slight difference between "publish(ing) clear, unslanted and factual reports ..." and investigating.

The first being more like going to a press conference and reporting what was said, the second is more like researching the hows and whys behind the event that spurred the press conference in the first place.

Reporting what was said at a press conference may be the minimum what most "news outlets" do because it costs more to do investigating.

Maybe adding the word, "in-depth" in there would satisfy both?

Maintaining clear, un-slanted and factual public journalistic oversight of elected politicians and the public bureaucracies.

...is to stand between the people and tyranny. How is this done? By finding and telling the truth. The press is given Constitutional protections so they may be the watchdogs of liberty.

... posting a link or two for the lurkers?

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

.. for corporate conquest? :shrug:

Not a current critique. I may be wrong.

:shrug:

:thumbsup:

Please see Pinto's post #12 above!

There's a distinction between journalism and commentary, between features and reportage.

Gregory probably referred to what is generally called the "Washington press corps" or what is called "opinion leaders."

Those who report on politicians, corporations, and government must be held to a higher standard than is currently applied. A way to demand this is through the professional organizations for journalists. The Columbia Journalism Review, the Society for Professional Journalists, the National Association of Newspaper Editors, etc. etc. etc.

Another problem is that the White House Correspondents Association has become a weak-toothed pussycat, run out of the WH itself and subject to manipulation and intimidations. Credentialing for correspondents needs to be returned to the association. It was transferred to the WH press office several decades ago, giving the WH the power to deny entry and to discipline critics.

THAT NEEDS TO CHANGE.

If he can't make himself clear and understood (even after all this time working with those "word" things) I don't care to try to do his work for him.

As far as what I meant by "media", you're welcome to define it however and in as many different ways as you choose.

I thought we were having a discussion.

And yes, you're right: we're having a discussion.

as to the critical issues of the day, leave the celebrity pablum for the tabloids. The only way this can be done is for the journalists to be totally familiar with the issues, they're reporting about, pros and cons.

2. When they're interviewing political or business leaders, ask the question, then shut the hell up, until they can come up with a decent followup question. Cutting off, interjecting and dominating the mike is rude, crude and hypocritical, there is nothing free about he exchange of information when the interviewer is intent on putting their own self absorbed spin on everything. Give the American People some credit for determining political lies, by giving them all the facts and information pertinent to the issue without continuous corporate media opinion and/or propaganda. As an example, I believe Bill Moyers is the best interviewer on television today, because he asks intelligent questions and he's an outstanding listener.

3. When members of the corporate media wish to slander or libel a political leader, the rest should call them on it, instead of relying on lazy ass group think, remedial courses in critical thinking skills may aid in this endeavor. The corporate media may think they're just damaging a single political leader of whom they don't care for, but in fact they're betraying the American People's best interests and tearing down the nation. But they know this shit or they damn sure ought too. As an example, the group think slander and libel committed against Al Gore over the better part of two years prior the selection of 2000. How insane do you have to be, to believe Al Gore actually claimed to have "invented the Internet"!? That group lie cost the nation hundreds of billions if not a trillion or two dollars, countless lives, injuries, loss of world esteem and God if there is one, only knows what else. How much trouble could it have been for our so called free press to actually have given him credit for his legislative achievements, dedication and vision in championing opening up the Internet for the American People!? That episode alone more than anything exposed the corporate media's true regards for the First Amendment, they only gave a damn in so far as it benefited their own narrow corporate agenda.

4. They also shouldn't be dancing or partying with the political or business leaders of which they have the responsibility to be informing the American People about. They should keep a professional distance! The most critical reporting I expect from David Gregory at this point is that Karl Rove stepped on his toes.

5. In general I believe the corporate media are too concentrated and ironically this has only served to weaken them as a free press.

you could make a good editor.:)

true role: to inform the public on important issues

current role: to mislead the people

Inform, explain, investigate. Who, what, why, when, where, how.

In the absence of publishing entities unowned and un-influenced by major corporations, mainstream media "news" is untrustworthy for anything other than weather reports, obituaries and giving sports unwarranted primacy.

...or just to entertain us.