Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful,
committed people can change the world. Indeed,
it is the only thing that ever has.

~Margaret Mead

Not all mainstream journalists are satisfied with the sad state of affairs that exists in American journalism today. Some are outspoken critics of their once-honorable profession. They deserve our thanks and encouragement as they strive to clean their own house.

The story that led to the impeachment of President Clinton by the House of Representatives was broken not in the mainstream media but by Internet gossip Matt Drudge on January 18, 1998.  Three days later the Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, and the American Broadcasting Company (ABC) reported the allegations that the president had had an affair with a White House intern, which Clinton denied, and the media frenzy began, with innuendo often replacing fact.  Interestingly enough, Newsweek lost the scoop because the magazine wanted to act responsibly.

For many critics of the media, coverage of the White House scandal indicated the extent to which tabloid and mainstream journalism had become closely aligned.  Television critic Tom Shales wrote in the Washington Post, “Once more, as seems to be happening with greater frequency, the lead story on ‘Inside Edition’ and ‘Hard Copy’ is the same as the lead story on the CBS Evening News.” Media critic Jon Katz likewise worried that the ramifications of the salacious coverage of the scandal would transmit a dangerous message to the public: “that there is no difference between us and the tabloids.”

Where Michael Jackson was concerned, there was absolutely no difference.
 

Will Humanity Ever Visit the Media?—by DeBorah B. Pryor

Who’s Watching the Watchdog?—An Essay on Journalism Ethics

Hey Tiger, just walk away—by Jason Whitlock

What Is Journalism’s Place in Social Media?—by Geneva Overholser