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.