Geez, sign me up for this course. I’m intrigued to read the rest of this as I play catch-up on the blogosphere.

On another note: the news that is “fit to print” is probably not read very much at all by Americans. It’s rare to see people pick up a newspaper and read its main articles. I haven’t any hard, fast statistics to guide these statements here, but I do have the usual anecdotal information. Perhaps this article will continue to address the means in which Americans do get their information, i.e. news networks on television?

This article is excellent. There’s really nothing more I can add except, keep up the good word!

I’m hooked.

So what this sentence was going to say is that this sucks hardcore, because journalists should be able to have a variety of sources and not be forced to rely on official sources.

Of course, not all publications do this. The NYT is a daily newspaper which reports “facts,” and because of the weight of its name, it probably needs to have those big named sources thrown into their articles. There are, however, other pubications that do not hesitate in using non official sources and/or will not waver in criticizing their official sources.

Hell yes, I agree with you one hundred and pifty percent on this. It infuriates me when journos “report”- ie unquestioningly summarize- government documents and statements. Latest example is the press’ overwhelming standardized reaction to the National Intelligence Estimate.

“the Official Sources filter has become the only source for many so-called “journalists.”

Ok, I hear all of what you’re saying re: our one-way press, but in defense of journalists, when they are seeking info that is classified that can be potentially crucial, the only people that they can go to are officials because they are the ones that have that info. And this illustrates another reality of our media: the consistent downsizing over the decades of international bureas with staff that live in the place they are reporting from. Say you want sensitive info regarding Iraq; your news employer doesn’t have a bureau or journo out there in Iraq. You contact the DoD, who are no way in hell giving up that info because it’s classified. If you had peeps out in Baghdad, maybe you would have been able to work around going to the military for answers, or even corrobate with others who are NOT official sources.

And then, journos will hesitate criticizing their “official” sources on whom they rely on to cough up the info that the journos are required to turn in to their editors under a tight deadline, who may very well scream at them for not having delivered what was expected. This sucks hardcore, because journs

I’m just saying, there are some structural constraints which have been produced by the sorry state of the media, with its increasing corporatization, monopolization, and downsizing. And yeah, there are also some really sucky journos and editors. But there are also journos who operate under restrictive circumstances; except we the readers/viewers don’t see that in the final product.

Anyway, I digress (as always).

Read it an weep.