“[American journalism was founded on] clear concept of a Fourth Estate — the role of journalists was to question the power of the three others and big business.”
By beginning with this assumption, Mr. Pecquerie misses most of the argument. Many Americans see the role of journalism as “delivering the news,” not “serving as the opposition.” The extent that the press has perverted the first function in order to favor the second explains much of its loss of credibility.

“[T]he education of journalists was very different — real journalists were experts in their fields, capable of anticipating technological and economic evolutions.”
He spoils his point by getting the progression backward: Formerly, “real journalists” were generalists who combined street smarts with expertise gained through long-term familiarity with their beats. Most weren’t “educated” into their specialty, they learned on the job. Todays professionalization of journalism (and management’s simultaneous uptake of the idea that reporters are interchangable) has produced a generation of reporters who know how to “do journalism,” but know so little about what they cover that they can’t tell the truth from the b*s*.

“From one day to the next [after 9/11], a ‘media nationalism’ made them lose their critical spirit.”
Mr. Pecquerie appears unfamiliar with The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, National Public Radio, CBS, etc., etc.

“It is very difficult to understand how theories such as ‘news is no longer a lecture but a conversation’ and ‘breaking news is the beginning, not the end of the news process’ have imposed themselves on the media scene.
It is very difficult to understand how someone cannot see these ideas as axiomatic. News is now a conversation because outsiders have greater ability to question the authority of the press than they have ever had before. And if the process doesn’t begin with “breaking news,” then where does it begin?

…Eason Jordan — most of the pressure in the blogosphere was placed on Jordan to resign, completely overshadowing the real issue — whether journalists were being targeted in Iraq.
Eason Jordan made a charge, and was challenged to back it up. He failed to do so. Mr. Pecquerie seems to be saying that Jordan’s remarks should be treated as an ex cathedra pronouncement, with their validity unquestioned.

A small number of bloggers were able to turn the attention of the public and the media from major issues to secondary details.
Vastly overstating the power of the bloggers. Would he have us believe that a few bloggers could dissuade the all of the press (both American and foreign) from investigating Jordan’s charges, or prevent it from revealing any findings that might have supported them?

Why doesn’t anybody dispute Dan Gillmor and Jeff Jarvis?
Mr. Pecquerie appears unfamiliar with the comments section of this weblog.

Who would one vote for if one favored less gov’t spending, for instance?

But his whining about loss of credibility is hiding the problem — the bias of most Democrat (90%?) press people, in what is covered and what is not, and how it is covered; it is the press bias which has cost credibility.

We don’t have soccer hooligans here either– so, what does that prove?

The beginning of politics isn’t having the Truth, or knowing exactly how something is to work exactly. It’s really about having opinions, and asking other people what they think, and continuing that dialogue as much as possible.