Us on U.S.

Their reputation for bad grammar and personal ranting aside, I've been trying to give blogs their due credit, and am finding that they are a great source to find all of people's frustration on the media. From personal to professional blogs, our classroom discussions to our papers, it is apparent that we are being beat over the head with examples of how the public "doesn't care" and therefore, the media will not cover specific events -- at the peril of our democracy.

One blog in particular that I found was linked up to the SPJ site, al-Sahafiyeen. The author of the article, RayHanania, expressed disgust at the lack of coverage by national and local news of the problems and mistakes surrounding the Iraq War and the current administration:

"Over the past few years, the U.S. Attorneys office has indicted, charged, prosecuted and convicted a handful of managers at Halliburton and KBR involved in bribe-taking and corruption. Another case is being prosecuted this week, but you wouldn't know about it, except that "another" Iraq war corruption case is being vetted by the Government."


What especially caught my eye on this particular blog though, was this observation by the author:

"The cases have been sent to low-profile regional federal court rooms, prosecuted under the national media's radar screen (as if we even have one, really). The latest invovles Jeff Mazon, a guy from suburban Chicago (my neck of the woods otherwise I might not have even seen anything about these cases) tied to Halliburton and KBR. He's being tried in Rockford, Illinois and it is being covered by Iowa's Quad-Cities Times (thankfully one paper is interested)."

As someone who received the Quad-City Times for most of their life, I happen to know that they have very little interest in exposing national crises and cover-ups, but are instead scraping to find local stories with any kind of relevance. It is this particular knowledge that has shown me how happy many newspapers are to be ignorant, and it makes me feel incredibly cheated.

While I believe most papers would argue that they are using their ethical codes to decide what they cover in regards to relevance, I question the standard of what these papers may consider "relevant." I believe that it's relevant that the government is trying is darndest to cover up any mistakes it possibly can, but the QC Times may think it's more relevant to tell me about Dr. Phil's latest "good deed" or an update on how the Illinois rest stop system is developing. Consumers of news need to demand relevance in regards to what affects them in their daily lives-- and be specific.