Basically that (real) journalism will only live in exile? Perhaps a better way to think of this is that journalism will cut its dependence on, and allegiance t

Basically that (real) journalism will only live in exile? Perhaps a better way to think of this is that journalism will cut its dependence on, and allegiance to, a nation state. When the internet came along, many national newspapers tried to become global papers, but without losing their geographic ties to one location, and their connections with government in that location. A journalism with ties to the established parties can still be "real journalism" if you have a strong democracy in general. I think the strong ties to established parties are exactly the problem with mainstream outlets, particularly in the United States - they inevitably lead to spiked stories, damage control via official leaks off the record, and the management of the news cycle by politicians. This has been the case for a long time, in every country, and is not limited to the current state of the US (though it has perhaps reached an extreme form there). Establishment journalism simply can't afford to take on government of the nation it primarily covers. To take a couple of examples of established news outlets - the NYT and the Guardian, despite their best efforts, are still quite parochial in their view of events across the globe. The NYT is reluctant to significantly and persistently challenge the US administration, because it would make it far more difficult for them to cover domestic news, and because for domestic consumption it's not acceptable to criticise wartime activities (for example) too heavily. The Guardian still vilifies local Conservative right-wing politicians (in the pictures they choose, in the language they use when covering them), and goes easier on those from the Labour or LibDem party - policy is actually irrelevant to this kind of partisan outlook, apparently it's simply engrained in their editorial outlook - it's like a badge of honour, an unquestioned allegiance. It is also reluctant to criticise UK forces abroad or GCHQ involvement in spying (as opposed to the US, which they're more than happy to criticise). These old labels of left and right etc don't mean much, or shouldn't mean much, to citizens, who should be looking at the actual policies. Personally I find the jingoism, nationalism and partisan reporting inherent in national news annoying and distracting. It's far harder for these newspapers to drop their existing ties to physical space, local politics, and a nation state, than it will be for newer companies founded on the internet to ignore national affiliations and become truly global organisations. A new international news won't care what the established political parties and pundits have to say on a particular issue, but does care what reporters on the ground and citizens on the ground in that country have to say, and how it contrasts with the governing party's narrative (and often the stories our governments tell us via news organisations, presented without question or fact-checking, are clearly a constructed narrative, with bad guys and good guys, for example on the killing of 16 year old Abdulrahman al-Awlaki (reported as 21 one year old terrorist), or the cruise missile strike on al-Ma'jalah (women and children reported as a terrorist training camp, cruise missiles reported as Yemeni air force)). It's very difficult to make that kind of news if you also want to be part of the White House press pool (or equivalent in other countries), have limited access, and rely on simply reporting verbatim the unreliable statements of US allies like Yemen. Compare and contrast these reports: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/world/middleeast/18yemen.html http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/world/middleeast/18yemen.h... http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2013/6/7/witness_to_a_massacre_yemeni_tribal_leader_recalls_how_us_attack_on_al_majalah_killed_45_civilians http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2013/6/7/witness_to_a_massa... The lie was printed right after the events, based solely on US and Yemeni gov statements, but the truth was almost the exact opposite of the story relayed by the NYTimes here. They do not often simply relay stories from the North Korean, Russian or Chinese government without question like this. I'm sure there will have been an nytimes article correcting this at some point when the truth came out, though I can't find it specifically, and by then it's too late. Much of the criticism of the administration in the nytimes is written by outsiders (not journalists), relegated to the op-ed pages, and labelled as 'opinion', when it in fact contains more truth than the official reporting.