On Sunday, Washington Post ombudsman Patrick Pexton presented a plan for the paper he’s charged with watching.
His stirring proposal? The Post should redefine its audience and write hard-hitting work that serves the needs of the majority of Americans who live and work outside the Beltway, but whose lives are subject to Washington’s politicians and their whims.
As Greg Marx pointed out in a piece for Campaign Desk casting doubt on the wisdom of the move from a business standpoint, this would be a different tack from the Post’s current strategy:
This is a pretty direct rebuke to the editorial vision that’s been outlined by the top leadership at the paper. As the Post’s executive editor, Marcus Brauchli, told CJR’s Scott Sherman last fall, the paper’s current strategy is “really to be for and about Washington.” To write about Washington but for “all Americans,” as Pexton calls on the paper to do, is a very different project—one that requires being not of D.C., but apart from it.
But Pexton’s column, besides asserting that the coverage should not be slanted, left- or rightward, laid out little vision of what such a reporting strategy would look like or produce.
So we ask you: What kinds of stories should a hypothetical nonpartisan populist news outlet based in D.C. pursue? Are there existing outlets that you think are performing this mission?
A populist press would tell the truth and let the chips fall where they land. It would avoid the kneejerks that are so popular in the media stream press and particularly the right wing think tanks and pundits. It will seek to put stories and events events into context.
#1 Posted by William Du Bois, CJR on Tue 9 Aug 2011 at 03:26 PM
Pro-govt distortions, omissions, and lies do not deserve a popular audience.
Following is but one example of how the MSM have been tools for the govt and the Military-Industrial-Congressional State.
Read this typical AP lede: "The United States sent a representative for the first time Tuesday to the annual memorial service for victims of the atomic bombing of Nagasaki, one of two nuclear attacks that led Japan to surrender in World War II." (apnews.myway.com//article/20110809/D9P0KL680.html)
Now read the following essays, which quote top-level officials of the era who clearly contradict the AP's "mainstream" view and pretty much seal the deal on the alleged necessity of the A-bombings.
http://www.counterpunch.org/alperovitz08052011.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/raico/raico22.html
Who is misrepresenting history? Who is coddling the terrorists and mass-murderers? The answer is clear.
Good riddance to the lying, dying, news media.
#2 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Wed 10 Aug 2011 at 03:27 PM
I like populism, not fake Rick Santelli populism, but real populism:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/44079837#44079837
Dylan Ratigan is mad as hell about the fed, wallstreet, and the hollowing out of the middle class.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACm1ntw_4dM
and I guess he isn't going to take it anymore.
More of this, Washington Post!
#3 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 11 Aug 2011 at 01:50 AM
LOL...
I think that this "problem" will soon fix itself in about 15 months, when we see a whole LOT of "populism on the Potomac" elected into office.
The fact that the Dems failed in Wisconsin, after dumping more than $200 per vote into their silly attempt to retake the senate there, is a clear signal to me that the upcoming election is going to smack the crap out of the establishment.
The people have seen the Dems for what they are - sneaky, radical liberals willing to cram commie policy down the throats of unwilling voters - and they just don't like it. The mainstream GOP career politicians aren't in a much better position.
Once this "populism" happens, reporting on Washington will mesh a lot more closely with the national perspective.
#4 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Thu 11 Aug 2011 at 08:14 AM
You mean Columbia represents the people? Columbia represents socialism. That is not the people. Columbia is a comedy of leftist fictional information filled with the kids from the "in" power elite. columbia is an effin joke.
suibne
#5 Posted by suibne, CJR on Thu 25 Aug 2011 at 08:35 PM
Washington Spectator does a reasonable job of "filling in the behind the scenes details" of certain issues and policies.
EPI.org focuses on certain quantitative relevant facts.
The Economist gives interesting trend predictions, and overviews, but never enters the arena of direct name identification, and specific associations.
Wikipedia isn't too bad even on some current constantly changing facts-it hasn't reached the advertising/PR only released and edited by politically connected PR firms -stage-yet.
Some of the source publications of right and left US political think-tanks are good in-depth reporting. The reader just has to be savvy enough to consider the real sources and real motivations of all involved at the publications.
But since most people are just scrambling with day-to-day survival issues, and a few spend their time partying hardy on one level or another-who really cares what anyone is reporting about anything? AND-who really reads anything that requires any real cognitive skills?
#6 Posted by lisa2u2, CJR on Mon 5 Sep 2011 at 11:28 AM
A populist Washington press would stop reporting on politics as a game between Democrats and Republicans but focus on the losers: The American people.
A good example would be the reporting on health care. It was mostly Obama vs.the Republicans in Congress and for some people it really was a life or death issue.
#7 Posted by keith roberts, CJR on Fri 9 Sep 2011 at 05:09 PM