Hello Rui, Rui Correia writes, My question(s) (as a press freedom advocate [in Southern Africa]): How does the NYT fit into this? Are they innocent 'suckers' who will publish anything hot; are they in on the whole scam; do their readers fit the profile that would have the wool pulled over their eyes???
And who counters the 'work' done by knaves such as the NYT if they have bought in? DS: The NYT's canned Judith Miller not long ago for transgressions about story sourcing and lying. But I take that as direct evidence that the NYT's knows what it is doing. They know Miller went to talk to Vice President Cheney or his staff to get stuff for the latest edition. Much of the run up to the war was guided by the lack of criticality to the NYT's coverage. Does their audience get the wool pulled over their eyes? I think they don't fall into that hole. They agree with the powers that like having some position broadcast that justifies the current U.S. stance to the world. At the same time in that audience there was plenty of evidence of debate about the war. And the Times catered to that element by Dowd and other writers attacking Bush. So the short answer is most people buy into the U.S. global stance with more or less open eyes. In my view the NYT's is not a sucker but a full participant in shaping public attitudes. What is press freedom? This is an economic question in my view and has to do with the business plan of how the media makes profits. If one goes into the blogosphere the sort of tamed down reporting of the NYT's is not present. That resembles the press somewhat before the WWII period in that there were many more papers then and they were more focused on particular audiences. The blogosphere however, doesn't function like the newspaper press. There are more direct ties to the people in the blogosphere. A variety of levels of connection between the producers and their audience, because the blogosphere is interactive to a degree the press can't be. The audience is being drawn into participation which heightens their own mental skills to voice their interests. The countering in the blogosphere reflects the diffuse and un-organized nature of the left in the U.S. While it is lively and one can find more than adequate coverage of events, better in my estimation than the U.S. commercial media provides, the lack of clarity about how to organize a powerful voice in an effective people oriented way still hobbles the media. thanks, Doyle Saylor
