What a worthy phrase to describe the juggling act between advertisers, politicians, the public and the media. Worth reflecting on in the current focus of interest on the Murdoch empire. Justin Glyn’s article Getting the media we deserve – Eureka Street is something to chew on. To what extent does one participate in the “consent” that leads to the daily offering on the newsstand? How vigorously do we question, challenge, and research the assumptions that select what is newsworthy and how its presented? What courses in journalism do we need to take to even understand how and where to begin?
In the face of the overwhelming nature of such questions do we retire into defeated cynicism, seek to pick up engaged skepticism or adopt selective activism? Or is it a mix of all of these? Just wondering!
Wondering Pilgrim 
It is a time to take stock, to be sure: but the variety of offerings on a news stand reflect the same variety of tastes there have always been, from the elevated to the frankly dubious. Here is humanity in print, a take on the world which lasts a day. And for every Murdoch, there’s a Woodward and Bernstein to show why we must remain an open society at all costs.
LikeLike
By all means – discerning and reflective investigative journalism will always be critical to a well informed community. Without it we would not even be in a position to discuss the Murdoch revelations. I guess the question niggling me is the old cyclical one – to what extent do messengers of any medium (including my own) create community taste or reflect community taste? And what overriding influences do hidden powers (advertisers, empire builders) wield?
LikeLike
Good questions. I have long thought journalism, real journalism, has died. Everything is now opinion. Not a good thing.
LikeLike