An informed electorate will not come about simply because of an objective and "fearless media". A higher availability of factual journalism would allow those who already have a political drive to come to conclusions more quickly and easily; but isn't it that group of people who have already discovered news sources of greater objectivity? Froomkin uses an excerpt from the Guardian to show how the event should have been reported. Even for those who do participate in America's democracy but do not have an overt interest in the political climate, The Guardian is not a particularly esoteric news outlet. I think that a better stance to take would be to support the posterity in recognising the flaws in what they read. This seems like a more realistic goal.
In the USA, it seems like the large news sources have little journalistic integrity. I wonder if this has been a problem in the past, or if there was ever a period when there were good sources of news. If there were, I want to know if it was because news outlets kept the other news outlets in check. If one source got it wrong, I wouldn't be surprised if the other outlets made a big deal about. It doesn't seem like there's much fact checking going on between the outlets in the present, leaving the populace (who don't have the resources) to verify the truth.
Yes, the article assumes that the public is more proactive in staying informed and in considering issues of national interest. Sure, high expectations often lead to disappointment, but if you shoot for the stars and don't make it, well, there's a lot between the stars and the ground, right? Anyway, I think that the public should expect the press to be better than striving for neutrality. Neutrality is not objectivity and when something is objectively extreme, the press has a duty to report it. As American citizens, we have the civic duty of being informed, educated and proactive in our political process. Are either of these things the reality? Nope. They are good things to aspire to though.
I am actually British, so perhaps I'm not qualified to argue this point. At least over here, the BBC's North American editor stated clearly that "The Republican leadership looks and feels trapped - they made demands that they knew wouldn't be met rather than be accused of weakness and betrayal by their own hardliners” and The Independent were reporting on discomfort within the Republican Party about what they are doing. Are the two examples that Froomkin uses really representative of how the situation is being reported in America?
I don't know. We could ask the government, but . . . you know :) That's really interesting. No, I haven't read anything to that effect. Mostly I've seen the kind of minimizing that the article spoke of, that bland nothing that merely restates the obvious. Personally though, that doesn't surprise me. There are republicans who are more moderate and who most likely did not agree with the decision to create this situation. If you ever find yourself in the U.S., take a look at the news coverage and compare it with your own experience of the news in the UK. I think you'd be surprised at how uninformative the major news outlets can be.I am actually British, so perhaps I'm not qualified to argue this point.