It depends on the day anymore whether I defend or despise the media. Most days I do both. I was a news editor before becoming disabled 15 years ago. Much has changed in the media landscape since then. Some of it is due to the Internet, blogging, social media, etc. But there is also at play a significant downsizing within traditional media sources.

The newspaper I was at underwent 3 major rounds of layoffs in the years since I left (and more minor layoffs, restructuring, and offering incentives to leave). This situation is happening at almost every newspaper, though I’m not sure how much the average reader knows about it. This has left very few reporters and fewer editors trying to put out the same product they’ve always put out, which is impossible. So there has been a huge increase in things like printing news releases instead of covering the news.*

I in no way defend this type of coverage. I more often morosely consider traditional news to be mostly dead (though The Guardian continues to console me). I guess all I’m trying to say is that when we place blame on the media or defend the media, we need to understand the media we’re talking about. People seem to assume that today’s traditional media is the same one that has always existed. But I don’t think that’s true.

News media, like all media, is business. It has never existed solely as some altruistic watchdog. It plays the part the people running it want it to play. With so many of us (including me) getting our news from so many (often free) sources, the business side of news hasn’t been so good. It also means they no longer have to answer to a set and very regular group of active and involved consumers, which leaves up in the air who or what is guiding the watchdog to look outside their own interests.

That’s my take anyway, which is the only take I have to give ;)

*This also applies to other news media, but I often think solely of print. Apologies.