Letters to the Editor
-
Casual Observer:
For example, should people like Greenwald continue to hammer away at the corporate media in order to provoke change (not suggesting this is GG's goal)? Or conversely, should there be an effort to simply write them off, and produce new venues that will simply replace existing media as we know it.
My own belief is that good, healthy journalism will be produced faster and with least effort by bypassing the corporate media machine, which is too deeply entrenched and--as GG opines here--largely unable to perceive that a problem exists.
I agree on both counts - this is they key question, and I agree with your answer. But I don't think creating alternatives to the national press is mutually exclusive with criticizing it. I think continuing to criticize it, even when building alternatives, is vital for two reasons:
(1) that pressure can marginally change behavior -- through persuasion, shame, and from those in the press who are well-intentioned, and
(2) criticisms of the national press is what fuels and builds up the need for the alternatives -- i.e., by exposing the national press as lacking in credibility, it creates a demand and a place for alternatives.
People will only be receptive to an alternative once they realize there is something wrong with what they already have.