Pointing out a post by Tapscott concerning a memo from New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller where Keller admitted:

"even sophisticated readers of The New York Times sometimes find it hard to distinguish between news coverage and commentary in our pages."

The Captain, who asks "No one Mourns The Wall?", basically agrees with Tapscott's analysis but also further concludes:

Keller's remarks therefore probably admit less but mean more than people think. I doubt that he intended on saying that the wall has crumbled and editorialists have infiltrated news reporting. What I think he meant was that the bias exists with or without the wall. That presents a much more difficult problem for papers like the Times. If the processes really were corrupt, fixing them would not be terribly difficult. The problem exists because newspapers have created a tunnel-vision mindset, one so entrenched that most of those involved can't even detect it for themselves.

The challenge, for those who admit this problem, is to fix it. Given the size of the effort needed to do so, it really isn't so surprising after all that most would prefer not to acknowledge it.

I agree also, but will take it still one step further. Not only would the effort be a monumental one; it could also prove to be too little too late. On the other hand, not to acknowledge the problem is like a patient refusing life-saving medicine because the side effects are too severe.

The business model of print media as a "news" source is obsolete and will soon be defunct. The mainstream media are trying feverishly to get a solid, long-lasting foothold in the new media where they are meeting substantial obstacles, not the least of which is the wide dispersal of advertising dollars amongst smaller players. An obstacle that has been exacerbated recently by the addition to the mix of adsense-type programs that almost anybody can host. The MSM are faced with the terrifying prospect of losing their iron grip on the monopoly of news opinion like so much sand slipping through an hourglass.

Even if they were inclined to do so, only the strongest outfits would be able to afford, in real money, to both revamp their entire business model and correct the ideological infestation they have been nurturing for the past decades. I believe the idiom 'hoist with one's own petard' is appropriate here.

UPDATE...

An update from Tapscott:

The New York Times announced today that it is combining it's dead-tree edition newsroom staff with the staff of the online version. Romanesko has the memo. Expect more such announcements in the near future from other major dailies.

Translation: We are getting rid of our news department for the print edition.

Remember, it was just a few short years ago that the Internet bubble burst. The Internet advertising revenue model was all but doomed. Non-Internet ready concerns who were scrambling to catch up, which included many in the mainstream media, breathed a collective sigh of relief. Saved by the bell. However, it quickly became obvious that the technology bust did not dissuade the marketers from the Internet. Just because large brick-and-mortar concerns cum Internet businesses went belly up didn't mean that the almighty consumer quit the web. The consumer was still very active on the Internet. Where there are consumers, there will be advertising.

In the days of yore, "news" was a hot commodity because accurate information was scarce. What was available was usually unreliable rumor passed along by word of mouth. So the appeal of a "journal of record" as an authentic source of news had value.

Today, up-to-the-second news is accessible at your fingertips at any moment of the night or day. Right there along with all the advertising. In this context a newspaper delivered once daily has little value in the realm of "news". Without value, there is no incentive for an audience to purchase a paper. Without an audience, there is no need for marketers to purchase advertisement. The Internet is stealing the wind from the MSM's sails, and the MSM are staggering.

The Internet is print media's death knell. It is as inevitable as Borg assimilation. Print media as a primary, or even secondary, source for accessing news has become an utter irrelevancy. The only people supporting the newspaper business today are the nostalgic who still like to fiddle and fold around with the paper when they have their morning coffee or visit the library; those who are ignorant and still think newspapers are objective sources of the news; and the hotel industry. And all of those populations are steadily dwindling.

In the very near future, the main stream media will have to survive entirely on their Internet revenues because there will be no print revenue. This transition is not turning out to be a slam dunk. The New York Times' position in news market of the Internet is not as solid as was its position in the print news media market of New York City. On the Internet, the MSM have to live right alongside thousands of independent media sites some of whom exist solely to fact check and debunk the MSM and many of whom are running the same advertisements as the MSM.

Newspapers, like everyone else in the news media, make money from advertising. Advertising dollars follow the consumer. The newspapers have always wrongly assumed that they had high-paying advertisers simply because they were the established newspapers. Because they were the elite. Wrong. They had advertisers because they had an audience of consumers. Period. End of story.

The bottom line is that to maintain their dominant, opinion shaping position, the MSM must balance the ad revenue lost from declining circulation with improved ad revenue from the Internet. A working business model must co-exist with the ideology.

So why do they stubbornly maintain the farce?

I think the main problem is the belief by those on high that they can not afford to admit that The Wall is a farce. The power brokers and influence peddlers want to preserve the illusion of nonpartisan objectivity so their bias will be more persuasive to the ignorant masses. The bean counters are rightfully afraid that the truth will give their traditional advertisers pause as they consider whether they want their businesses to be associated with the propaganda of the publication's particular political slant. I mean, there is a reason why there are not ads on the editorial page. Companies only want to advertise in the news sections. You know, the completely objective part.

Thus, to completely deny the problem is to the advantage of both the business interests and the ideological interests of the MSM and they have therefore obviously decided to ignore the ideological problem and focus entirely on the business model. If they can successfully replace lost ad revenue without making changes in the newsroom, they can continue with business as usual, spouting ideological tripe while vigorously defending the farcical concept of The Wall. If they can not make a successful transition to the internet, only then will they begin to address the bias issue. The sweet irony is that the revenue transition problem likely can not be solved without first putting the bias issue to bed.

If The New York Times were to officially come clean and admit they were biased, they would need to hire conservative journalists to provide the balance necessary to correct the problem. Otherwise they would be branded as a left wing propaganda outlet, thus losing appeal to the broader market. They do not want to make sweeping staff changes, for the reason alluded to by The Captain, but also because the liberal elites absolutely despise conservatives and find conservative thinking beneath contempt.

The MSM believe they can keep both their broad market appeal and their ideological bias but, realistically, the challenge is two-fold, whether the MSM admit it or not. They must replace the lost revenue from the print business with revenue from the Internet business and they must eventually address The Wall, or lack thereof. The absolute need to generate revenue will eventually mandate a more balanced approach to the news.

The task at hand is kinda like building a new ship while the ship you are on is sinking. The new ship has to be floating and sea worthy before the old ship slips completely under water. With finite resources and limited time, the ship builders have to address the most important issues on a priority basis. The new ship will likely be smaller than the old ship and much of the baggage will have to be left behind lest the new ship sink as well. Many of the folks down below will not survive.

Now that is a monumental task. We may very well be in the beginning of the end of a dynasty where the once dominant force is displaced by a new emerging force.

The good news is that for those in the old media who do decide to take their medicine, there are literally thousands of conservative writers incubating their writing skills on their blogs.

Hmmm, maybe that explains why political blogs overwhelmingly tend towards conservatism. All the liberals are working for the media. Conservatives who aspired to be writers soon figured out that a career in journalism was not an attractive prospect. They now all have blogs.