This is a very insightful comment. I think one relevant factor is the demand for factual information vs entertainment content.
I struggle with what the appropriate mindset should be for someone undertaking journalism. Is a pre-existing belief in the legitimacy of various institutions/governments helpful or harmful to the process? Is respect/deference to officials, wealthy people, celebrities, etc., helpful or harmful?
Because there is so much demand for entertainment (of which partisan reporting is one form) I am really not sure how much actual demand there is for truthful, in-depth coverage.
The choice of what to cover entails a view foisted upon readers that some things are more worthy of our attention than others. So how can a journalism organization be upfront about the inevitable gaps in coverage so that readers will know to ask for coverage and know that the org is aware of the topic but lacks resources to cover it.
For instance, a story about the issues going on in Syria and no story about decaying highway infrastructure might entail the belief that one is important and the other is not important. So I think the ideal news organization would locate every story on some sort of content map that defined exactly where it fit into the organization's broader mission.
A story about Syria might be filed under "America's foreign engagements" and a story about decaying highways could be filed under "Tracking America's infrastructure quality and infrastructure projects". Personally I would love to see lots of coverage of infrastructure, as it is one of the few ways we can hold local, state and national governments accountable for one of their most important responsibilities.
But the idea of a front page that reflects (only) everything that is important that day is where (I think) the biases start to creep in.
Anyway, sorry about the digression, just wanted to express my appreciation for the parent comment.
> A story about Syria might be filed under "America's foreign engagements" and a story about decaying highways could be filed under "Tracking America's infrastructure quality and infrastructure projects".
I'd like to point out that this is meant to be a global news source so the fact that America is involved would hardly be the most significant aspect of a story about Syria.
I don't understand your comment - do you mean that every story has to be related to America in some way? (by which I guess you mean the United States of America, by the way, which is one of many countries inside the two America continents)
No, my comment is not meant to entail that at all. My intention was to give an example of two different stories which in typical journalistic environments would be reported on because they reinforce a particular narrative about what should be important to readers.
I struggle with what the appropriate mindset should be for someone undertaking journalism. Is a pre-existing belief in the legitimacy of various institutions/governments helpful or harmful to the process? Is respect/deference to officials, wealthy people, celebrities, etc., helpful or harmful?
Because there is so much demand for entertainment (of which partisan reporting is one form) I am really not sure how much actual demand there is for truthful, in-depth coverage.
The choice of what to cover entails a view foisted upon readers that some things are more worthy of our attention than others. So how can a journalism organization be upfront about the inevitable gaps in coverage so that readers will know to ask for coverage and know that the org is aware of the topic but lacks resources to cover it.
For instance, a story about the issues going on in Syria and no story about decaying highway infrastructure might entail the belief that one is important and the other is not important. So I think the ideal news organization would locate every story on some sort of content map that defined exactly where it fit into the organization's broader mission.
A story about Syria might be filed under "America's foreign engagements" and a story about decaying highways could be filed under "Tracking America's infrastructure quality and infrastructure projects". Personally I would love to see lots of coverage of infrastructure, as it is one of the few ways we can hold local, state and national governments accountable for one of their most important responsibilities.
But the idea of a front page that reflects (only) everything that is important that day is where (I think) the biases start to creep in.
Anyway, sorry about the digression, just wanted to express my appreciation for the parent comment.