> I like how they try to portray the idea that that American journalism isn't on the constant advocacy path because I cannot recall a time they are not. This i

> I like how they try to portray the idea that that American journalism isn't on the constant advocacy path because I cannot recall a time they are not. This is important--and you can see it on the issue of homelessness itself. Journalists' failure to cover homelessness may (charitably) have been borne of a desire for neutrality, but failure to cover an issue is not necessarily neutral in effect. If homeless is, objectively, a serious problem, the failure to cover it is a form of tacit (though inadvertent) support. It's just that ones motives are harder to discern and, thus, one's actions are more readily justified when one does nothing. When one does something, the universe of justifications narrows dramatically, and there's no escaping the fact that the world will be able to see and evaluate your motives.