Skip navigation

Monthly Archives: May 2009

We have a class called “Reporting on Decisions” where we have listened to an array of journalists — experts in their field — telling us how bad coverage in their respective fields is and has been in mainstream media almost forever. KC Cole deplored coverage of George Bush’s decisions to put politics above science, Bill Celis told us how deficient coverage was of a major education reform landmark in Texas, and Sasha Anawalt showed us how the L.A. Times missed the boat on the MOCA meltdown.
That was just the beginning. Then we then heard from our own colleages, specialized students who are becoming experts in their fields and who analyzed media coverage of an important decision. The result has been eye openning, although not altogether unexpected. Media is for the most part shallow and deficient in its reporting: it fails to place important decisions in context and fails to provide adequate explanations.

For a long time I’ve been feeling sad about the demise of newspapers as we know them, but the more I see these presentations, and the more I think about it, perhaps it’s not such a bad thing after all.

Advertisements