Agenda-shifting

Yes, all journalists are agenda-setters. I find it hard to argue that and simutaneously find it the weakest argument critics have against journalism.

By nature that's what journalism is and that's what an editor's job is. They just can't cover everything so they pick what they think has the most relevance in society. There's no 100% fair way to do that and I think it's something that every good editor struggles with. Sometimes they get it right and sometimes they make mistakes.

But the chasm that has existed between readers and editors (and that has fueled an editors' power to decide the news solely) is shrinking. We're talking digital age again (see a pattern in this blog - coupled with the fact that I'm blogging at all). This isn't a revelation anymore - digitalization is changing the way the media work and that includes how they choose and report on stories.

I think the burden of agenda-setting is falling into the hands of the public but honestly, I'm not sure how to feel about that. Think about it: the field of journalism was created because the public needed an educated, unbiased body to do this work for them, and now the roles are reversing back? Why don't we just go ahead and eliminate the electoral college too?