Not your father's media

News item: The Los Angeles Times fired its top editor earlier this month after he rejected a management order to cut $4 million from the newsroom budget, 14 months after his predecessor was also ousted over a budget dispute, the newspaper said. (AP)

A dozen years ago, I left the daily mainstream media, disillusioned with the direction of the industry and, frankly, more than disgusted with how newspaper journalism had evolved from the days of my youth into a bottom line-oriented, do-everything-on-the-cheap profession in which the accountants had taken over the true seats of power and relegated the news producers to second-class status. I vividly recall the irony of one Friday afternoon when the newspaper at which I was employed at the time had won a major award for its journalistic prowess. Thirty minutes later, the publisher instructed the newsroom brass to cut back the size of the paper to save money.

One need only look at the recent angst at the L.A. Times to see the straits a once-noble business finds itself in today. Newspaper circulation keeps falling nationwide as more of the public gets its news from the Internet. Let's face it: The long-time advertising model that has provided much of newspapers' revenue streams is fading in favor of the more focused and varied options on the Web that can yield a higher return on an business's marketing investment.

But while we witnessed that transition, a not-so-funny thing happened as we stumbled into the 21st century. News organizations believed in reporting on the cheap, with fewer editorial staff. What that leaves is less experienced people bringing you the news, and in the interest of filling newsprint space, they'll do whatever is easy rather than engage in true, thoughtful, impactful journalism that will raise eyebrows and inspire outrage. And this has infected TV journalism (especially local outlets) as well, which is also fighting the Internet for attention. Think about it: How many times when you're expecting a snowstorm do you see a nightly newscast address it in the first few minutes? It appears as if it's the same drill for every snowstorm: Trot out the meteorologist, interview a couple of people to find out how they "feel" about the coming snowstorm (Bleccch!), and add some light-hearted banter with a few laughs as you're about to be hit with a couple feet of snow, which you look forward to as much as you would a root canal.

Remember the presidential election of 1988, which will go down in history as one in which the media was roundly - and rightly - criticized for not focusing on the issues? The media has tried to rebound from that, but, 20 years later, it hasn't come around full circle. I watched a debate last week in which I heard one candidate speak very eloquently about the issues, more so than the other hopefuls. The debate recaps in the media were more interested in the verbal jousting between two of the candidates.

Hopefully, the media will come around to recapture some of its lost stature, and focus on stuff that matters rather than, say, a celebrity's addictions or who a star quarterback is dating. Of course, the rest of us need to care enough about stuff that matters, lest the media think we don't. Otherwise, we could all be headed for trouble.

What about you? How do you see the media's role today and what could it do better?