PressEthic

Reading the NewYorkMetro.com article on Anderson Cooper brought to mind a few points Jay Rosen made in his piece on Katrina and the press. Specifically the "balance-of-power shift" between he feels is taking place from the administration to the press. And it raised some questions.

If a balance of power is taking place, what new responsibilities does that put on the press? Even if you don't agree that the press was universally bowing to the administration, if we talk about the press in this way - in terms of an amount of power in opposition to an administration - what new issues does that raise? Meaning, should that be the primary identity of the press?

Rosen talks about his view of the "triangular relationship" between the press, the administration and the public. "If we only look at two sides without reckoning with the third we'll always go wrong," he says. True. But it seems to me that there are dangers in that three-part relationship becoming too polarizing.

Which raises the issue of the new face of broadcast journalism that some feel is emerging with the likes of Anderson Cooper and others.

If, with the exit of the "big three", we're moving away from an older idea of the news anchor, are we also moving toward an idea of the anchorperson as a sort of direct conduit of the news, minus a 'filter'?

Reading the Anderson Cooper article, one had to ask if we're entering a time when the personality - and personal life - of the broadcast journalist is paramount. There have always been the "stars" of broadcast journalism, but is this different?

Today, celebrity is king, and Americans adopt their celebrities - and many of their broadcast journalists - with familial intimacy.

But do a focus on the personal and an identity centered on opposition to an administration make a good broadcast press?