Jay Rosen, the New York University press critic, has written a treatise on what he calls the "actual ideology of the American press." It is compelling and provocative, and I recommend a full read. I also think it leaves out something quite important: if the ideologies he identifies -- the pathologies, actually -- are the sum total of the media, what would Jay Rosen, if he were running the world, have us do? Is there a distinction between journalism and ideological argument? Is it methodological? Are there times when, given the difficulty of discovering a truth, journalists can and should adopt a disinterested or disembodied stance? His criticism applies largely to political journalism, and so I anticipate his answer.
How to avoid working through lunch, and diseases related to social isolation.