Between the Lines

Isn't journalism healthier if it's crafted by a multiplicity of voices, taking local, regional, national and international scoops into account, as myriad stories suddenly present themselves throughout the feisty day, millions of people, multiple interests, a wide variety attempting to take them into account, don't people from Denver want to know what's happening in Denver, don't people from any town or city care about what's happening in their own backyard, doesn't a wide variety of editors ensure more fact checking and less uniformity, an informative multilateral public sphere where subjective outlooks can't be monopolized?

Isn't it a dangerous thing to have only a handful of newspapers for a country with around 350 million people, where every region promotes diversity and particular concurrence is tough to come by?

If there are only a handful of newspapers running the same stories and not bothering to compete with one another, can you trust that they're providing objective accounts of whatever they happen to be disseminating?

Couldn't the various senior editors simply get together for the weekend and come up with a specific focus that their employees would then have to concentrate on in order to present a particularized slice of subjective dubious truth?

If there are only a handful of news outlets and tens of thousands of people want the extremely limited positions, doesn't conformity override independence after an initial dazzling display?

And don't journalists desperate to hold on to their jobs feel more willing to abide by the dictates of a tiny cadre of editors, if there are no other jobs available and independence is judged anathema?

Isn't that totalitarianism cloaked in objective truth, with a monopoly on public opinion that's generally left unchecked?

Doesn't bold risk taking and daring investigative journalism suffer within such an unchallenged hegemonic filtered narrow environment?

Isn't it more likely that the best journalists won't find jobs since they're more likely to possess a dynamic independent spirit?

Won't they be more likely to start thousands of independent websites across the country multivariably focused on examining local daily news?

And won't their voices seem more authentic than a unilateral team which can't question its own institution without risking ostracization?

Won't both sides call each other fake and won't everything seem preposterous as they clash to the point where nonsense starts to seem meaningful?

Has this already happened?

Am I way off here?