RochesterWriters

Reading the stories coming out of Lafayette, Louisiana reminded me of an unfortunate aspect of agenda-driven private newspaper ownership. More specifically I'm talking about company-wide bias as related by Dominick Cross, “Moody would not let us write editorials, run local stories, AP copy or letters to the editor that in any shape or form had negative content about President Bush."

Tieing in to our discussions on the commenting features, I've seen commenters on both sides of the city violence debate accuse the D&C of being either too pro-city or too anti-city in their reporting. This is just one issue, but which is it? Are there other arenas in which the D&C shows glowingly overt bias? Is this also undermining their credibility going forward?

Online editions of newspapers enjoy increasing popularity in a world where people spend more time per day staring at a monitor than they do sleeping (myself included). In attempting to create a new discussion in the broader context of the future of journalism and the downsizing of newspaper staffs nationwide, I'd like to start a rational conversation about the pros and cons of instantaneous feedback forums attached to every news story irrespective of the sensitivity of subject matter.

Is it always more important for everyone who is willing to speak up to be heard? Can these 'forums' undermine community and race relations? Is extremism, and consequentially a lack of respect for the opinions of others as well as a tendency for ad hominem attacks promoted through the safeguards of digital anonymity?

I, at various times and now permanently, have boycotted the D&C online edition. This essentially means that I won't link through to their content on my blog, preferring instead to use another local source for the same story such as RNews.com. I try to avoid reading stories entirely except when directed to them by others. I feel that the D&C, through lack of true moderation of comments, has lent tacit approval to divisive attitudes and poor conduct on everything from development to school achievement to race baiting to train accidents.

The very least the D&C could do would be to hide the comments behind a link. That way those interested in hearing themselves scream loudly in binary can battle it out. The rest of us can go there to read the news as described by paid reporters.

I suppose this is all a very long-winded way of stating that despite its efforts, mainstream media is burning itself out and/or selling itself short as it increasingly emulates talk radio. Is this a fair assessment?