Portions of the following information are drawn from previous postings on the NPTalk discussion list. It is difficult to know for certain whether the Internet has helped to make more high-quality policy information available to the public, or simply more information. Consider a 7/16/01 New York Times article by Dave Kansas regarding the state of online journalism, which noted that many traditional print media, broadcast networks, wire services, and radio stations have a web presence in some form or another. Kansas suggests that, given the number of media entities online, the Internet's value as source of news information has been validated. Because a nigh number of traditional news organizations have gone online, the Internet is held to the same set of standards which govern existing print, radio, and broadcast journalism (though as Kansas points out, some traditional news sources can-- and do-- lapse on occasion in terms of accuracy and quality of the information they present). The rise in online new outlets, however, has had an impact, not only on how fast news is covered, but also what is actually presented to the public-- be it speculation, gossip, insider information, public discourse, entertainment, human interest, sports, local and community events, or policy happenings. Kansas posits this trend as a "layering" of pure facts, interpretation, and analysis, which compresses decision-making around determining the status and value of information with the process of news gathering and dissemination itself. One effect is to make line between editor, publisher, reporter, commentator, and the readership that much less distinct. While convenience makes this inevitable, compression potentially poses questions about the quality of the context, breadth, and depth of content available, especially if the resource utilized is focused on a narrow set of issues, and in turn relies on readership to determine what gets presented. This is especially true with respect to online forums or e-mails that have proven to be the source of news items in certain areas. While this might suggest a heightened level of interest in a broader range of subjects, generating, in turn, a wider range of content, there may actually be less coverage of issues, particularly public interest topics, than one might think. Consider Lucinda Fleeson's July/August 2001 American Journalism Review article. Today, we now have content around more subjects than we could previously ever imagine, except one... the federal government itself. Fleeson contends that we now have an environment in which major news organizations and outlets do not have regular contact with individual federal agencies. What coverage of federal agencies there is tends to be lumped into either more general categories (such as "Washington activities") or issue/theme categories (such as "environment" and "jobs"). Why? To make news in this are both more interesting and more accessible. The risk, however, is that in doing so, editors, reporters, and the reading audience may forget about broader themes, such as government spending and regulatory activities, for starters. Fleeson points out, for example, that while press coverage has been cut for the Internal Revenue Service, Labor Department, and Social Security Administration, and some reporters must do double duty in covering both the State and Defense Departments, there is no base of full-time reporters assigned to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The news organizations themselves argue that, given limited staff and intense efforts to maintain declining readership, more resources have to be funneled into making government happenings more interesting for their audiences. This means more broad happenings, and less day-to-day coverage on proposed rules, policy debates, hearings, and official agency announcements. Moreover, news editors contend that there is more emphasis on investigative journalism than before, and that reporters are more likely to scrutinize agency happenings, and be able to frame the arcane in a more grounded context, than their predecessors. Additionally, news organizations would argue that since wire services, such as Reuters and the Associated Press, do provide a venue for this information, there is no need to devote additional reporters to do the same thing. One example cited is the Scripps Howard Washington bureau, which polled its readers to identify the topics with which they were most concerned: they selected "health", "education," and "suburban sprawl". So the wire service dedicated a total of six reporters to cover the three areas (divided by two each). The reporters then simply looked for information only on that topic which got fed into an overall Washington category. This meant that while, potentially, there might be cross agency coverage on those issues, there was no room for reporting on the specific overall happenings within an agency, or more general coverage of trends such as spending, oversight, accountability, etc. This is why public affairs programming, particularly television and radio talk shows, is so vital. It gives the public an opportunity not only to identify who policy decision-makers are, but to gauge for themselves the context of the language used to frame key issues. Judging by the 7/16/01 Focus on the Corporation column by Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman, however, the public may not even be receiving the best range of policy perspectives through even established broadcast media. The column cited a 2001 report by Justin Elga and George Farah of Essential Action, which took a look at coverage of current events by Sunday morning political talk shows. By way of background, the both sets of aforementioned authors are concerned with corporate accountability issues, and how those issues are manifest in a broad range of political, social, economic contexts. Elga and Farah examined all of the transcripts of national Sunday morning broadcast network programs geared towards public affairs and policy discussion-- CBS's "Face the Nation," ABC's "This Week," NBC's "Meet the Press," and "The McLaughlin Group." (Fox Network's "Fox Sunday" news program and local public affairs shows were not included). The time frame included June 1995-1996 and July-December 1999. Their findings basically show that guests on the programs are not likely to feature an abundance of public interest guests or perspectives, especially from the progressive community, instead favoring the views of government officials, politicians and candidates for office, and celebrity newsmakers. Without spoiling all the fun, we'll simply point out that during the 1996 review period, the total number of topics relating to the environment, consumers, civil justice, labor, and corporate accountability were... 0. Care to take a wild guess what the study found in terms of the number of those same issues discussed during the 1999 period? Though they didn't specifically examine it, Elga and Farah postulate that heavy corporate sponsorship of the programs may be one reason for the tilted coverage. In fact, the authors point out that despite its 1996 guilty plea to criminal price-fixing charges resulting in the then-largest antitrust fine, Archer Daniels Midland was never discussed on any of the programs examined-- though it advertises on those programs. The same goes with General Electric, caught in the middle of a toxins cleanup controversy that has never been discussed on the McLaughlin Group program it supports through advertising. While emphasizing their low ratings and questionable quality, Mokhiber and Weissman do point out that the value of forums such as Sunday talk shows is the attention they draw from other media types and policy decision-makers, serving as barometers for what issues are worth discussing and ignoring. If, however, those policymakers are most influenced by the shows-- which consist of a limited universe of policymakers and journalists-- then this might not bode well for the ability of a wide range of policy perspectives on broad social concerns to be aired to a narrowly targeted, yet highly influential, segment of the media. As a large number of the people quoted by Fleeson note, government information isn't flashy enough to always warrant front-page status. When it does, it is usually for something bad, or a particularly egregious example of waste, fraud, abuse, or mismanagement-- which might not accurately reflect the performance of an agency or its programs. So, lack of coverage also means the public misses out on the innovations and good news produced or yielded by government efforts.This has had the effect, in some instances, of agencies themselves reducing (or eliminating) some of their resources for press, including their public information offices and the staff to man them. Interestingly, the Internet has been offered as a way to deliver on the promises of "e-government" while addressing gaps in information access by the public. As Fleeson notes, many agencies disseminate announcements through the Web, fax, e-mail, and even telephone conference calls, which can accommodate large numbers of reporters. Therefore, a reporter, often does not need to be present at an agency's office to pick up routine information. The trade-off, however, is that reporters (and hte public in turn) lose access to the nuance of policy statemenets and announcments, and the body language, vocal inflections, and context accompanying questions that might be asked of an official, on- or off-the-record. And more often than not, those who cover that information are likely not to have day-to-day contact with agency spokespeople or key sources, or may lack fundamental understanding of how agencies "really" work. Lack of access to policy information that is, at the very least, made available through-- if not analyzed by-- news media, raises questions about how accountable the institutions of government are to the public that supports them. Resources Cited 7/16/01 New York Times Dave Kansas (free registration required) July/August 2001 American Journalism Review Lucinda Fleeson 7/16/01 Focus on the Corporation column Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman Sunday Morning Political Talk Show Ignore Corporate Power Issues Justin Elga and George Farah Essential Action