????很好。又來了一篇宣揚“互聯網正在拯救新聞”的辯詞，這次的辯護者是網絡雜志《石板》（Slate）的財經作家馬特?依格雷西亞斯。看到皮尤研究公司（Pew Research）就今年《媒體狀況》（State Of the Media）所發布的、令人沮喪的報告之后，他宣稱：“美國新聞媒體從來沒有像現在這樣興旺。這是一個常識嘛。”

????與往常一樣，當有人引用“常識”一詞時，大家一定要仔細推敲。在這件事上，甚至不需要仔細推敲——乍一聽，這就是一個非常空洞愚蠢的言論。通常情況下，“互聯網正在改善我們的新聞媒體”，這種觀點往往隱含著一定的準政治意味：“舊媒體”的“精英把關人”只不過是想保護自己的地盤，而互聯網正在給予“人民”從眾多新聞源泉中選擇的權力（說句公道話，依格雷西亞斯主要是采用暗示的方式來表達這層意思）。

????這種言論幾乎總是忽略了一個事實：對“人民”產生最直接影響的本地新聞受害最重，沒有一系列的新聞源泉供其選擇。在這一點上，依格雷西亞斯的觀點沒有什么不同之處。從一開始，他就冒冒失失地躍入這個具有諷刺意味的深淵之中。近期對塞浦路斯銀行救助計劃的鋪天蓋地，他援引這些報道，證明新聞媒體狀況頗佳。“我對塞浦路斯銀行救助危機的分析肯定不是對這件事的總結性闡釋，”他自信滿滿地說道。“大家可以非常迅速、非常輕松地在《紐約時報》（The New York Times）、《華爾街日報》（Wall Street Journal）、《金融時報》（Financial Times）和《經濟學人》（The Economist）上找到相關報道。”

????誠然，現在對某些公共生活領域的報道的確很好，也許比以往任何時候都要好。比如，或許有更多的人正在撰寫涉及國際事務、名人文化、金融（尤其是華爾街的一舉一動，特別是特定股票的漲跌情況）和技術（特別是小發明和應用程序，以及制造它們的公司）的報道。但本地報社的大規模裁員以及不斷下降的收入已經毀掉了對市政廳、學校和州議會大廈新聞的報道，而這些地方所發生的事情對“人民”（意即納稅人）的利害關系顯然要大得多。換言之，富裕階層（就是閱讀《石板》雜志和依格雷西亞斯提及的那些出版物的群體）感興趣的新聞現在的確做得非常好。但面向中產階級和工人階級的新聞，以及為公眾利益服務的新聞，現在已經形同游魂野鬼。依格雷西亞斯甚至根本就沒有提到這類新聞。他或許會辯解說，盡管本地新聞目前處境堪憂，但互聯網的力量“終將”使得這類新聞比以往更強大（但截至目前，我們幾乎看不到這一幕即將出現的跡象）。然而，就學術辯論而言，在這些討論中忽略本地新聞似乎不夠坦誠。

????大約10年前，勤勉的報社記者（有時是電視和廣播）還經常曝光地方的腐敗和政府失職事件。可以肯定的是，現在這類事件正變得日益猖獗，但卻幾乎沒有得到任何監督，主要原因就在于報業的不斷萎縮。此外，這種腐敗和失職事件之所以更容易發生是因為地方和州官員知道，現在已經沒有那么多有見識的“看門狗”密切留意他們的一舉一動了。除了政府干的這些壞事之外，公民現在甚至對公職人員的日常活動也所知寥寥。你們當地的學校董事會是不是正在制定一項課程計劃，而你們或許覺得并不十分適合你的孩子？你們或許不知道這個問題的答案，因為過去一家報社報道學校事務的記者多達三位，但現在可能只剩下一位了，甚至連一個都沒有了。而且，現在從事這項工作的人經驗也往往比從前那幾位記者欠缺很多。

????Oh, good. Another "the Internet is saving journalism" apologia, this time by Matt Yglesias, Slate's economics writer. Yglesias, reacting to the dismal findings of this year's State of the Media report from Pew Research, declared that "American news media has never been in better shape. That's just common sense."

????As always when somebody cites "common sense," close scrutiny is demanded. In this case, the scrutiny doesn't even have to be close—the argument is inane on the face of it. Usually, this notion that the Internet is improving our news media is couched in quasi-political terms: the "elite gatekeepers" of the "old media" are simply trying to protect their turf while the Internet is giving "the people" power to choose from a whole range of news sources. (To be fair, Yglesias does this mostly by implication.)

????Such arguments almost always leave out the fact that it is local and regional news—the news that most directly affects "the people"—that has been hurt the most, and there is no range of sources from which to choose. Yglesias is no different, and he heedlessly leaps into this ironic abyss right from the start, citing recent blanket coverage of Cyprus's bank bailouts as evidence that the news media is in fine shape. "You don't need to take my analysis of the Cyprus bank bailout crisis as the last word on the matter," he humblebrags. "You can quickly and easily find coverage fromThe New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, and the Economist."

????It's true that certain areas of public life are covered very well, maybe better than ever. For example, we might have more people writing about international affairs, celebrity culture, finance (especially Wall Street, and most especially whether particular stocks might go up or down), and technology (especially gadgets and apps, and the companies that make them). But massive layoffs and sinking revenues at local and regional newspapers have decimated coverage of city halls, schools, and statehouses—places where "the people" (meaning, taxpaying citizens) have a far bigger stake. In other words, news that appeals to the well-off (the kinds of people who read Slate and all the publications Yglesias references) is doing fine. But journalism that is aimed at the interests of the middle and working classes, and journalism done in the general public interest, is a ghost of its former self. Yglesias doesn't even mention this kind of journalism. An argument could be made that, while local and regional news is in a bad way right now, the power of the Internet will eventually make such journalism stronger than ever (though there are few signs of that happening so far). But to ignore local and regional news in these discussions seems intellectually dishonest.

????It's guaranteed that the kind of local corruption and government mismanagement that was routinely revealed by working newspaper reporters (and some on TV and radio) up until about 10 years ago is now running rampant, often going totally unscrutinized, thanks to shrinking newsrooms. Further, such corruption and mismanagement is more easily allowed to happen in the first place because local and state officials know they don't have as many knowledgeable watchdogs looking over their shoulders. And even beyond the bad stuff government does, citizens are left with much less knowledge of the everyday doings of their public officials. Is your local school board devising a curriculum plan that you might think is not the best thing for your kids? You might not know, because instead of three reporters covering schools for a given newspaper, now there might be only one, or even none. And the people doing it often have much less experience than they once did.