As new models for funding journalism are explored, some people are raising concerns about how foundations, for example, might unduly influence the content of the news they underwrite (CJR.org, 5/22/12). Such questions are valid, but they shouldn’t be taken as suggestions that such arrangements threaten novel encroachments on a now-pristine field. It shows how inured we’ve become to news brought to us by private corporations, who in fact care very much about the content of the news they sponsor or, as outlet owners, produce—that it not be too downbeat, or provide a platform for anyone asking hard questions about corporate ...
In January 2013, the Los Angeles Times (1/4/13) published an explosive story about alleged criminality in the L.A. Police Department. Two veteran officers, Luis Valenzuela and James Nichols, were under investigation for using the threat of jail to force at least four different women they had previously arrested to have sex with them. Such crimes are legally known as “rape.” But the Times avoided using that term, inexplicably employing every other word and phrase imaginable—including “sex crimes,” “sexual favors” and “forced sex”—to describe what the officers were accused of. Worse still, the Times unquestioningly regurgitated police excuses for why it ...
Abortion Restrictions Soar, Media Coverage Sags
National papers underreport shifting landscape
by Julie Hollar
Public Sector Workers Are ‘the Easiest Kid to Pick On’
Dean Baker on Detroit bankruptcy
Fallujah Slaughter Rewritten as Sacrifice
Power vacuum—or memory hole?
by Peter Hart
Muzzling Critics—or Building Media Democracy?
Ecuador media law riles US journalists
by Peter Hart
Names in the News—or Not
People, places and issues on cable news in 2013
by Melanie Nakashian and Jim Naureckas