Really terrific post.

don't you just become a reporter? You seem to have all the answers and can obviously do a better job than most of the journalists out there.

Rambling commentaries aren't going to do anymore than give you the opportunity to possibly point and say "I told you so".

Go get a job with the Times and show them how it's done.

The press that promotes the Bush propaganda without questioning have to be believers in his policies. Why else would they quote anonymous sources to promote the Bush agenda? Many people are still fearful and Bush strokes their fears to make them believe he will protect them from these terrorists. What is unfortunate that the truth is not coming out? The media are enabling the lies and the policies of failure that are leading us down a disasterous path. This gang is more of a threat to our way of life than the 'terrorists.'

MDH

The premise of your piece is that the function of the media is to act a watchdog and to expose and prevent "official" wrongdoing. It is after all, what we were taught to believe and it is of course why we were told the first amendment is such an important part of our American heritage.

Unfortunately, as businesses, the function of media is simply to generate the greatest amount of revenue while incurring the least amount of expenses. Investigations consume resources and pissing off the administration has measurable costs as well. It is unsurprising then that the opportunity to fill column inches with certified non-boat-rocking official approved news would be quite tempting.

Since its simple economics that drives the trend, the best counter also requires simple economics. (Sadly, in order for Glenn to point out shoddy reporting, it IS necessary to read the paper.) But the bottom line (get it?) remains that if we don't like the way a source reports the news, then we should vote with our eyeballs and go elsewhere to get our news. We should also encourage those we know to do the same thing.

Unfortunately, as businesses, the function of media is simply to generate the greatest amount of revenue while incurring the least amount of expenses.

I just don't agree with this. For one, they hold themselves out as something different and it is therefore proper, and appropriate, to point out the discrepency between the function they claim they are performing and what they are actually doing.

Secondly, all sorts of profit-driven professions have duties and responsibilities that are independent of, and might even conflict with, the goal of generating a profit. Lawyers, physicians, and psychologists, for instance, all run businesses and want to make money, but they also have professional obligations that have nothing to do with profit.

Third, in a free market, companies are free to do what they want, but those who receive special rights and privileges from the government have corresponding obligations which deviate from their profit function. Television networks, for instance, receive braodcast licenses and the right to use airwaves but have imposed on them the obligation to serve the public interest. Major League Baseball receives an anti-trust exemption, and therefore has all sorts of obligations to fulfill beyond just generating profit.

The press continuously claims the rights granted to it by the First Amendment. In exchange for those rights are responsiblities.

Finally, the behavior that is being criticized here does not really serve a profit-generating goal. How does mindlessly reporting government claims enhance profit. Wouldn't exposing government corruption and deceit create controvery and therefore more attention, higher ratings and hire profit?

No worries, people. All of this insanity is intentional. Yeah, what a relief.

BBC.com has a notably more satisfying report on the situation with Iraq, Iran, and the US. While citing of sources did not play a prominent role in the article, it does a decent job of presenting explanations for the US government's behavior with regards to Iran. This is more what I would expect from a respected institution like the NYT.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6353489.stm

'However the officials who presented the evidence could not make a direct link to Iran.

"The officials said such an assertion was an inference based on general intelligence assessments," stated the New York Times. '

'Against the inference that this all comes from Iran is the concept that Iraqis themselves would be capable of copying a design and therefore do not need to get bombs from Iran.

And there have been a number of news reports over the last year expressing scepticism, even among military personnel, about the link to Iran. '

Unfortunately, as businesses, the function of media is simply to generate the greatest amount of revenue while incurring the least amount of expenses. Investigations consume resources and pissing off the administration has measurable costs as well. It is unsurprising then that the opportunity to fill column inches with certified non-boat-rocking official approved news would be quite tempting.

In addition to what Glenn said (Which I wholly agree with) - what this represents then is yet another market failure. The media's role as government watchdog is an essential function of a democratic society. The private sector has repeatedly failed manifestly in that function.

There is nothing in the constitution which says that government oversight and investigatory journalism by a free press are necessarily functions reserved for for-profit enterprises. It was left that way, most likely because the founders obviously feared a government run media source would be like Pravda. Well, we have such a media arm in Fox News and the Washington Times, and they receive 0 government funding. So whatever flaws PBS has would almost certainly be better than that.

It is time to start talking about systematic reforms. I would start with funding PBS and NPR at the level of the CBC in Canada or BBC in Britain.

If the private sector won't do oversight, by God let's nationalize at least some of it, and damn the cost, it's worth every penny.

Glenn:

"Finally, the behavior that is being criticized here does not really serve a profit-generating goal. How does mindlessly reporting government claims enhance profit. Wouldn't exposing government corruption and deceit create controversy and therefore more attention, higher ratings and hire profit?"

Unless the profits are not really from the people reading the paper. Maybe lies are more profitable than truth. Maybe kickbacks outside the newspaper are influencing what is reported. Maybe there are self interested goals and the newspaper is used for steering towards that goal/obfuscating the goal. Newspapers may loose someone like me, but how many others may they gain? Hate and love seems to sell. Love and peace is out. (At least from my perspective.)

Maybe we are just seeing the mainstreaming of the National Enquirer.