Frontline

One of the first major issues brought up in the Frontline piece was the idea that money is bringing down the quality of journalism. I have to agree with this thought and, honestly, cannot understand how people would argue against it. People may say "today's news is just giving people what they want." This may be true but I think that a journalists with the power of these prime time staffs have, should make decisions on what the people need to here. This doesn't happen, especially in publicly traded companies where profit margins are the main indicator of success, rather than the quality of reporting.

As far as independent journalists, this issue is very complicated and can have strong arguments on either side. These writers can provide insights and opinions that major news companies may not, due to editorial or political policies. On the other hand, I think they should be viewed with slightly less credibility becasue they have not studied journalism and are not monitored with the same scrutiny mainstream sources are. I think these types of journalist are beneficial on an individual basis but only work as part of a bigger system of media outlets.

The LA Times segment was very interesting. I had no idea that some papers were still making that much money. Frontline made it evident to me that publicly traded news companies, while having the some advantages in resourcces, can have serious flaws when it comes to quality reporting. There is no perfect scenario for ownership though because the ethics of the material are only as strong as the ethics of the editor and reporters writing it. It amazes me how much money plays a part in the world of journalism and how editors not only have to make profits, but have plans to increase profits in the furture.