Anthony Cody wrote a post in which he reviews how the newspapers have reacted to important issues.
First, there was the great editorial in a Vermont newspaper, patiently explaining that public schools belong to the public, “not hedge fund managers and entrepreneurs,” and they serve public purposes.
Then he points to the Lap Dog editorial in the Los Angeles Times, which defended embattled superintendent John Deasy, whose decisions may be costly and harmful, but who must ultimately prevail over those who were elected by the public to be Deasy’s employer. The L.A. Times, in other words, voices the anti-democratic views of its owner, who obviously cares very little for democratic niceties like elections. John Deasy is the darling of Eli Broad and Bill Gates, so his wrong-headed decisions must be defended, free from any judgment by no matter the elected board. In the eyes of this newspaper, Deasy is the boss and the elected board works for him.
And then there is the kid-glove treatment of New Jersey’s bully governor, whose sneering response to a teacher was not worthy of a mention. Luckily, his remarks as well as his sneer were recorded by others, and they are going viral even now.
I have always been a supporter of a free press, but at times like these, one misses the freedom of the press. The press should comfort the afflicted, and afflict the comfortable. But that’s hard to do when the comfortable own the press.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
This morning’s MSNBC offerings lauding Christie’s bullying as ‘likeable’ is a prime example of just how much corporate media distorts reality in favor of their agenda…
I think it is disgusting that a public servant treats the people he serves in such a manner and the media gives him kudos. It is only a matter of time before he self-destructs.
I surely hope you are right, but I fear he may be just the man to unite the Rep party in 2016: scrappy, a strong leader, quite conservative while at the same time having succeeded in a liberal state by making deals with Dems. >shudder< I can only hope that if this comes about, the greater public will view him as too aggressive & unstatesmanlike for the highest office.
Rather suspicious timing: Two positive articles in the LA Times in the past few days touting new initiatives that have been initiated under Deasy’s reign. The initiatives are great, and if Deasy deserves the credit for them, he should get it; but they have not reversed the plunging morale or the atmosphere of fear in the schools. Someone in the media needs to pay more attention to the often silenced or cautious voices of teachers, principals and students at the ground level.
Diane,
I’m still waiting for the Seattle Times to explain why they gave multiple pages of coverage to Michelle Rhee when she was here last February. (However, not one mention of the cheating scandal she was deeply embroiled in nor anything else that hinted at any controversy.)
In fact, the coverage of Rhee was bizarrely over the top; you would have thought that Jesus AND Elvis had both returned that night. The Seattle Times covered her visit extensively, including a straight news story, a long interview with the editorial board, and a feature piece.
But, unfortunately, it was exceedingly poor journalism. It resembled the “puff pieces” I normally associate with some mass market magazines, replete with full page, full color ads, targeted to a demographic obsessed with frivolous distractions such as celebrity, fashion and “lifestyle”.
In case there were any doubts about the poor quality of the Rhee coverage, this view was reinforced, right down to a jarring, pseudo-Saskia de Brauw “wannabe” photo image of Rhee attempting to appear “glamorous” while peering out over the city.
In contrast, when you came to town in September, the Seattle Times didn’t print one word about your visit. Not one word. Nothing. Nada. Two weeks earlier, on an “educational events” calendar, in very small print, they mentioned your upcoming appearance at the University of Washington. But when I went back to check it, just before your visit, it had vanished.
I’ve written to the Seattle Times since you were here, asking them why they never covered your visit, or reviewed your book, or anything else. I’m still waiting to hear from them.
Something tells me I’ll be waiting for a while.
Add the Denver Post to this list. In an editorial, not only did it endorse the four reformy candidates for the Denver school board, it even endorsed the crazy people controllinig nearby Douglas County! Its stories about education issues lack serious research and vigor, even the most recent one that traces the money supporting Douglas County-style reforms to just three big contributors, who are now trying to spread their agenda of vouchers, charters, and union destruction across the state.
Sadly, freedom of the press has never really meant people think it means. What it actually means is that Americans who are wealthy enough to own a media company can print whatever they want. Now what you might hope and pray for is that journalists be held to a standard of integrity. Right now, it’s really up to the people and/or the market place to hold journalists to standards. But you have to wonder if we shouldn’t have a licensing system for journalists where they have to take an oath of honestly and integrity to enter the field AND where they can be prosecuted for distributing false or slanted information.
No, just freedom to buy the press.
Reblogged this on Transparent Christina.
The news papers are not the real news anymore. It is the people like us on blogs all over the internet. News papers are going down the tubes.
Hopefully they will take the corporate television/radio newscasts down with them. It’s 100% corporate bias all of the time.
Reblogged this on Middletown Voice and commented:
Diane nails Gannett, or The StarPress and IndyStar with this one:
“The press should comfort the afflicted, and afflict the comfortable. But that’s hard to do when the comfortable own the press.”