Sunday, April 12, 2009

Posted by at

1 comment:

  1. Dan GrossApril 12, 2009 at 10:51 AM

    As what I'm sure he intended to be the major deathblow in his argument against the democratic importance of newspapers, Jack Shafer wrote, "If you're a big proponent of democracy, you'll be interested to know that a majority of Americans don't care whether their local newspaper lives or dies." But if you're a big proponent of democracy, you've been in the minority far longer than that. If you average the voter turnout in federal elections from 2002 to 2008, you'll find that only 46.55% of the voting-age population actually contributed(according to the voter turnout reports on infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html). If we apply Shafer's logic, then democracy itself should be discarded. He wants us to toss the baby out with the bathwater.
    Shafer's connection between the news media (for he seems to be railing against reporting in general) and democracy is limited in its scope. He states that, "to begin with, political parties, special interests, and government itself all have a stake in the maintenance of elections and democracy." His argument is that, since these groups that have vested interest in influencing the public are doing the job, no other reporting is necessary. What then would he make of the "swiftboat" ads during the Kerry campaign? Was that socially and democratically responsible? These groups are not held to any journalistic standards at all and can say whatever they want. The media fulfills its role specifically by limiting itself to reporting what is verifiable. It is a necessary counter to the unlimited authority that special interest groups assign themselves when addressing the public.
    He goes on to claim that reporting on issues like the drug war in Mexico, and flooding in North Dakota is going to do little to inspire political inclusion. This is absolutely asinine. Reporting on the drug war in Mexico has the potential to shape national and international policy regarding America's closest neighbors. Reporting on flooding in North Dakota allows us to examine the operation of America's disaster relief infrastructure following Hurricane Katrina. But no, according to Shafer, these are unimportant.
    In short, if this article is indicative of the type of media reporting we have to look forward to after the demise of the newspapers, we can all get ready to be deafened by the blaring of individuals who lay claim to more outrage than insight.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)