> You're overlooking self-censorship, which happens all the
> time at mainstream newspapers and magazines. Reporters know
> what editors will reject, editors know what will cause them
> trouble with publishers, and publishers know what will cause
> trouble with advertisers. And then there's the unwillingness
> to offend sources - print something critical of the White
> House, and you'll be frozen out of the whisper circuit. A
> perfect example was that Irish TV interview with Bush about
> which I posted an article here a couple of months ago. The WH
> press operation was incensed that the reporter asked W some
> difficult questions. The norm in Ireland, very rare here.
Actually, I was well aware of it, but I still consider it a part of source-specific censorship. If I work, say, for the NYT and I have a story that I know my editor will reject, I can still publish it elsewhere even under a pen name to protect my job. I am not denying that censorship via editorial policy or self-censorship is not a serious issue - but I do not view it as a problem as long as alternative venues for publishing the censored views exist. I based that conclusion on the assumption that the reader should have some responsibility for surveying and comparing different sources of information instead of being spoon-fed by a single readily available source. That assumption may be too heroic, but then if indeed spoon-feeding is unavoidable, the variety of opinions and view points seems no longer needed. After all, what use can ants make of dead philosophers?
> Low circ of progressive pubs: The Nation's circ is at record levels.
> It recently surpassed National Review to become the most
> popular journal of opinion in the US, and it's way ahead of
> The New Republic and The Weekly Standard.
That may be true, but the above does not speak to the fact that opinion journalism and "serious journalism" in general are not in very high demand - and the mases seem to prefer mindless entertainment. It does not mean that there is no market niche for "serious" journalism in the country of nearly 300 million people - but that such niche is minuscule in comparison to the market share of "mindless entertainment." Since my original argument was that the scarcity of liberal voices in the media are due to low demand rather than restrictions on supply - to counter that you would need to show that demand for such content is in fact higher than the existing supply, not merely higher than another low standard.
Wojtek