I'd say the larger problem with journalism today, especially in BLUE Oregon, is a growing lack of objective reporting often seeded by journalism schools that lack viewpoint diversity among the faculty and prepare students to be activists not reporters. Critical thinking is a lost art today and newspapers like The Mail Tribune refuse to engage in a serious discussion about the need for less bias in the selection, framing, and anchoring of information being presented to the public. Promoting narratives has replaced fact-based reporting of *multiple* perspectives, with editors unable to discern that difference often due to deeply embedded confirmation bias. {Or what cognitive psychologists now refer to as "my side bias" driven by "motivated reasoning".}
This would be worth exploring. Yet, for example, the owner of Rosebud — which publishes the Mail Tribune / Ashland Tidings} refuse to engage in a *science-based* evaluation and analysis that could significantly improve the quality of public discourse and begin to restore confidence in journalism as an objective source of information that is a valuable contributor to "sense making."
I'd say the larger problem with journalism today, especially in BLUE Oregon, is a growing lack of objective reporting often seeded by journalism schools that lack viewpoint diversity among the faculty and prepare students to be activists not reporters. Critical thinking is a lost art today and newspapers like The Mail Tribune refuse to engage in a serious discussion about the need for less bias in the selection, framing, and anchoring of information being presented to the public. Promoting narratives has replaced fact-based reporting of *multiple* perspectives, with editors unable to discern that difference often due to deeply embedded confirmation bias. {Or what cognitive psychologists now refer to as "my side bias" driven by "motivated reasoning".}
This would be worth exploring. Yet, for example, the owner of Rosebud — which publishes the Mail Tribune / Ashland Tidings} refuse to engage in a *science-based* evaluation and analysis that could significantly improve the quality of public discourse and begin to restore confidence in journalism as an objective source of information that is a valuable contributor to "sense making."