Jay Rosen went off on the media (again), this time for the horse-race campaign coverage. He separates his points into nice, succinct criticisms of why the media "has" no brain (and note here how he uses the singular verb for plural media, denoting its singular mentality in working as a pack). His lead reads:

Just so you know, "the media" has no mind. It cannot make decisions. Which means it does not "get behind" candidates. It does not decide to oppose your guy... or gal. Nor does it "buy" this line or "swallow" that one. It is a beast without a brain. Most of the time, it doesn't know what it's doing.

And he continues by delineating the problem into: The herd of independent minds, convergence of judgement, special insight, removed from experience, and under the influence of each other and insiders. Indeed, much of the problem rests with issues of humanity -- the tendency to rely on who we know and our backgrounds and our instincts as social beings.

It is the beast without a brain, he writes. (I love how media watchers constantly refer to the press as a "beast." When I was a reporter, I always wondered, what did this make me? Was an eye of the beast? A paw? What a surreal experience to report and write, since I apparently did so not only as part of a sort of nebulous 'pack' but also without thinking about it.)

Frankly, I agree with all of Rosen's statements, and especially appreciated the nuanced description of the problem that broke down the notion of 'pack' journalism into characteristics of individual journalistic motivation.

But I get frustrated when we constantly see the problems of the press so well articulated in such a methodical manner without as much careful thought given to a blueprint for change. Rosen dedicates a couple paragraphs at the end of two pages of diatribe to any solution:

Here, the job of the campaign press is not to preempt the voters' decision by asking endlessly, and predicting constantly, who's going to win. The job is to make certain that what needs to be discussed will be discussed in time to make a difference - and then report on that.

He wants more "politics," without really laying out how journalists can rise above the human nature that often creates the situational dynamics of such reporting. Let's think a minute about some realistic avenues for journalists to tread, beyond the idea that we need more "issues" reporting. What does that mean specifically? How does a reporter quell the fear that causes them to 'pack' up?