Critical, important examination of how the journalistic tradition of objectivity became confused (if not synonymous), in recent decades, with deference to authority and power. "The confusion about standards of political accountability starts with the implicit journalistic shortcut that assumes reporting to the citizenry what those at the center of power are doing is the most reasonable and unassailable thing to do ... setting the news agenda independently, while producing a refreshing diversity of information, would also bring noisy criticisms of bias and crusading -- from the same public officials [not to mention citizenry] who have come to depend on the current news system as a tool of public relations and governance. The confusion of objectivity with power is so profound that journalists who depart from narratives reported by the rest of the press pack are typically challenged by their editors for not getting the story right. [p. 178] ... news organizations repeatedly decided to apply the unwritten rule that without some government mechanism such as a congressional hearing ... [or] opposition from opponents deemed capable of actually influencing or defeating them", contrary views are seldom given attention in the mainstream press. [p. 35, 179]
"n news about most government policy issues, the absence of credible and potentially decisive opposition from inside government itself leaves the mainstream press generally unable to build and sustain counterstories. This is true even when credible sources outside government can offer evidence to the contrary, and for the most part, even if opposition exists from domestic public opinion or foreign governments. This process is so regular that it has been referred to by one of the authors as 'indexing' the range of news content to the degree of institutional conflict (as noted by the journalists themselves)." [p. 36] ( )