Not at all. The public wants what the public gets translates to: if you stop feeding the public shite they'll want that as well. So to say "there's no market" is not at all accurate.
If you need a reference look at Top 40 radio. It's on. It plays. The masses consume it. If you swappes out any 10 songs for example - which btw naturally happens - no one would notice. They wouldn't change the station.
The "there's no market" excuse was created by the media to cover their lazy asses. The Truth is they can't even analyze themselves. How are they going to properly serve the rest of us?
In the context of the concept of The Fourth Estate there is no choice. A _journalist's_ obligation is to seek The Truth and info the masses. Period.
The fact that there's excessive noise is no excuse for journalists giving up their standards and joining the noise - at which point they are no longer journalists.
Cost is not the issue. Availability and "brand reputation" is. Fox News can pass itself off as "news" because CNN and MSNBC are just as substanceless. What well know entity can we point to and say "now _that_ is journalism"?
Blaming the public for the lazy media is well...um...lazy. And clear indication of a lack of understanding if the responsibilities that come along with the right of a free press. The press has shunned their responsibilities. But that's the public's fault? Um...no!
Journalism is a lot of things. Seeking the truth might be a goal for some journalists but the be all end all definition of journalism it certainly aint.
Furthermore making truth the only way to define journalism basically render it non-existing as there is no objective way to define "The Truth". On top of that even if we interpret "seeking the truth" liberally you still end up agreeing with what I wrote as seeking is not the same as finding and thuse we are back to it just being interpretations.
You are proving my point and is in fact one of those who keep discussion journalism as something with some higher goal than what people want to pay for.
Again the market has spoken it doesn't care about your version of "high quality".
It's no ones fault it's just how it is and you just can't get to terms with that. That's a 'you' problem, nothing else.
We have what, six major news orgs in the USA (3 networks + CNN, MSNBC and Fox). And a handful of semi-relevant newspapers and magazines.
And aside from political leaning there is no difference between them. I take it you think that's because it's wise to swim in a red ocean? Because they are all chasing the same market? That doesn't make any sense.
I get it, not every outlet can be The Economist. But to call the fluff yacked out by (say) Newsweek journalism is pure fantasy.
In a democracy The Fouth Estate has certain responsibilities. These are responibilites that exist beyond the restriction of "market." To confuse this with commodity reporting is, at best, naive.
Again, I'll point you to Top 40 radio. There are a fair number of times where uniqueness - and dare I say quality - rises to the top. More importantly ulimately they accept and embrace what's there. The dial doesn't move.
I'll also point you to cable TV vs "traditional" TV. Game of Thrones, Sapranos, Walking Dead, etc., etc. The market went for that.
Star Wars was shunned and not expected to be what it became.
You're blaming the market and there's minimal - if any - opportunity for the market shows it wants otherwise. Instead we get "me too" reporting being passed off as journalism. And you believe this LCD approach is market driven. God bless you.
All this would be comical if the healthiness of The Fourth Estate wasn't so important. As it is, I'm having to convince someone of decent pedigree that journalism and reporting isn't the same thing. They are not. Cats are not dogs either.
I said SEEK the truth. That doesn't mean you'll attain it. But a journalist still seeks it. Why? Because that is journalism.
A reporter on the other hand parrots the press release spin that's fed to them. They gladly roll over and play stupid. They don't seek. They regurgitate. They do softball interviews. They skip the real questions. They can't be bothered. They also, because it's cool and prestigious call themselves journalists.
These reporters aren't real journalists any more than the bagels at Dunkin Donuts are really bagels.
I didn't say anything about "high quality." I'm do here. Have a nice day.
Yes, you did which as I said becomes meaningless statement which proves my point that journalism IS just perspectives regardless of intent. So thanks for proving my point.
