• DOI:10.1080/08821127.2006.10678018
• Corpus ID: 163628980

The Press Edited by Geneva Overholser and Kathleen Hall Jamieson New York: Oxford University Press (Institutions of American Democracy Series), 2005. 473 pp

@article{Sperry2006ThePE,
  title={The Press Edited by Geneva Overholser and Kathleen Hall Jamieson New York: Oxford University Press (Institutions of American Democracy Series), 2005. 473 pp},
  author={Ben Sperry},
  journal={American Journalism},
  year={2006},
  volume={23},
  pages={173 - 174}
}

• Ben Sperry
• Published 1 April 2006
• Political Science
• American Journalism

This ongoing positioning in the agora, so intentional at the local level, becomes more nebulous and problematic when the broader issue of the entire media's role in a democracy is considered. The Press, a collection of essays written by some 35 scholars and journalists and edited by Geneva Overholser and Kathleen Hall Jamieson, is a systematic attempt to grapple with a number of basic questions on this daunting topic. For example, from the book's introduction: is journalism necessary for an informed citizenry? What kind of journalism is essential to democracy? What are the responsibilities of the big media powers? How do we measure how well the press is doing? The Press is part ofa five-bookseries, titled the Institutions ofAmerican Democracy, The bear hugs included outreach to the schools, a commitment to zoning editions and local news, readers' representatives, citizens' advisory panels, a speakers bureau, sponsorship of community events, and highlight boxes urging that all comments and concerns be directed to your friendly local bureau chief, here pictured. Aside from being good for business, the pitch to readers essentially was one of democracy: this is your public forum and we want you to join in. When I last worked in a newsroom, more than 10 years ago now, democracy was, as ever, a working principle struggling to be born. Within the paper's corporate hierarchy, run mostly by white-shirted white men of a certain age and outlook, was a growing editorial cadre of women and blacks and outlanders and mid-career transfers and overeducated baby boomers of various stripes, many of whom, it turns out, didn't mind speaking up at story meetings with an alternative and often insubordinate view. The irritable and jocular anarchy that typically would ensue generally was accepted as part ofa healthy trend; the news staff needed to be a dynamic mix, the thinking went, the better to reflect and understand our diverse and contentious community. This sunshine-law attitude was flaunted in other areas of the paper as well. Readers were relentlessly wooed with a neighborly charm offensive. The Press