My 2-paise worth on the media debate: When I joined a journalism school, there were many like me there who did have a hallowed view of journalism. Then we were told repeatedly that such views cannot sustain in real newsrooms. And so, my dissertation there was this: In a democracy, media is supposed to be that of a watchdog, playing the role of an instrument of change. But increasingly, there is a strong perception that it seems to have relinquished this role. Contrary to this perception, there are many journalists out there who do a diligent job under heavy work pressures. Given this, the focus of the dissertation was to understand the effectiveness of media today as an instrument of change. This is something that is still being debated, among colleagues and the community, and it is not an easy either or answer - that this is so because this is what the consumer wants or this is so because the media has stopped trying.
(As an aside, I haven't seen any decent analysis of the change in vocabulary - nowadays everyone uses the words 'consumer', 'stakeholder', 'win-win' etc. It does speak of a certain mindset.) There is an interesting essay by Prabhat Patnaik that talks about how the moral universe of the media has changed: http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl1915/19151280.htm It summarizes a lot of the reasons how and why the changing context (since the 80s to now) has affected the efficacy of the media. Community media does offer more hope for change, a knight in a low-cost armour. Sruthi
