If external sources to the newsroom do affect which stories make the final cut, then what intensity of factors usually drive this shift in coverage?

If important questions aren't asked because a journalist is afraid of sounding partisan or losing their job, then they may be just buckling to the grand machine of what they think is public opinion or employment preservation. In this case, they should probably become a politician instead of a journalist. This seems to be the reason that comedian-journalists are having so great an impact since they say what everyone else wants to say, and should say. They address the issues in a manner that shows the absurdity of issues, political statements, and actions and allows the real issue to surface in a more subtle and memorable way. Their jobs are safe. They have huge followings and huge salaries--the best of everything.

I personally have never been one to back down from a well thought-out and supported position just because my employment has been threatened or I might create a stir. I have often treated that as my call to action to try to instill change-- first through thoughtful communication, and if the organization still seems destined to make itself obsolete, I am happy to get out of the way. It is undoubtedly a stressful way to live. Unfortunately, I am not a comedian. While I have lived as I speak, I am also not afraid to make paradigm shifts in thought when new and better information is integrated into my knowledge network, in other words, one can't have tunnel vision. I am always surprised when a politician calls another politician a flip-flopper. To me this means they are able to change their mind when they might be wrong, or re-evaluate their position based on important new information--a skill politicians, especially diplomats, need to have in spades. George W. Bush stuck to his ideas even when they were horribly wrong. He could have done much greater service to the country if he could have incorporated a bit of open- mindedness when it was needed. I digress.

Reporters can play devils advocate and grill their subject on the important questions that need to be raised whether public "says" they want it or not. Advertisers will be more interested in advertising without the "fringe benefits" if they see the readership or viewership has returned. It takes courage though--something that may be sorely lacking in today's newsrooms.

I remember back to the post 9/11 days and at the start of the current Iraq War was big news and none of the journalists that I saw were asking the tough questions that I wanted to know. I remember thinking--"What's going on here--are they on the payroll of the White House?" I am all for deference and respect where due, but not at the sacrifice of progress in the service of the greater good. If the questions had been asked... you can fill in the blank here. This seems to me to be the reason the public respects the news less--the trust has been lost and needs to be regained with the confidence of old-world journalism.

Maybe the public needs to be retrained not to over-react to issues or maybe the journalists are doing a slight disservice in just presenting the sides of an issue without the meat of research and interpretation. In not expressing their own well thought out and carefully crafted opinions, maybe they are leaving the interpretation wide open. Its like putting a frame on the wall and asking people to comment on the art it contains. While many artists have done this kind of work in the past, without the understanding of the artists background or intent, the real communication can be lost.

1) Ask the hard questions that others in the democracy want to ask and want to know, but might not have the same access to ask
2) Be relentless in getting the answers that break the veil of rhetoric
3) Have an opinion, but above all, seek to approach the truth that meets the needs of the broader public. Having an open mind and being altruistic are two aspects of truly responsible journalism. If you don’t have these qualities then, you are most likely a pundit, politician or opinion columnist, which while the guests of journalist, are not those we turn to for news we can trust as being closer-than-not to the truth.

I understand that news outlets have a responsibility to be profitable. Profitability can only be solid where the value of the news outlet is in its reputation for hard journalism and truth-seeking. Focus groups can't dictate what is important. News outlets with the most stability are those that report first and sell ads second. This too requires some altruism and pride in one’s work on the part of the advertising account executive (salesperson) as well as the journalists. It calls for responsibility in reminding advertisers that along with being advertisers, they are also news consumers. Ask them if they would want news that has been purchased or if they would rather have news that is untainted by the advertisers that support it. If the medium is reputable enough, the advertiser will advertise because of the quality of the audience delivered by reputable journalism. News outlets that pander to their advertisers or their viewer focus group results gradually or better yet quickly lose their audience as soon as advertorial preponderance or news flab is obvious.

My evaluation criteria of media outlets are fairly simple. I look at the news from the perspective of are they telling me what I need and to know and are they asking the type of questions that I would be asking as a passionate observer with unbounded curiosity? Are they telling me anything new and are they challenging me to think about an issue in a way that wasn't readily apparent? Are they keeping the American democracy and capitalism in check to avoid one or the other from creating a catastrophic collapse of the system? Are they covering events around the world in a substantive manner? Am I left with a sense of what is happening in the world on a daily basis and am I able to make sense of what they have been telling me? These questions are going to become more important as globalism becomes more and more prevalent. If one looks at the global effect that one major economy can have on the rest of the world, one can see how much more important global journalism can become.