By Roshaun L. Harris
The current template for "mainstream" journalism is based on a model that does not serve the idea of depth. When covering major events, such as a the Haitian earthquake, the contemporary mainstream doesn't have the capacity, in its current structure, to give the audience a truly "in-depth" perspective. Dialogue based news, compared to debate based news, serves a more solutions oriented bottom line. If the bottom line is profit driven, the debate style can be more titillating and attract more casual viewers. Dialogue takes a more patient and focused audience. When trying to sell ad space you need viewership that spans a wide range of intellectual capacity, leaving the lowest common denominator as the binding thread. Amy Goodman and Democracy Now use a style of news that facilitates critical thinking on issues that effect a wide diaspora of people. Democracy Now host a daily news program that addresses the major stories seen on most news network yet they also incorporate stories that often don't get heard on the major channels. What needs to be focused on is the format. That is where the major distinctions lay. Goodman narrates the headlines at the beginning of the program. After the headlines there is a definite shift in the tone of the program. It becomes more conversational in the second portion of the program. The tendency naturally, one might assume, is that there will be heated debates on "hot-stove" topics de jour. That is not the norm with this broadcast. On any given day(check the archives) one may see dialogue between those who hold similar position or just one individual who has a particular expertise, but not in the traditional sense. The expertise comes from a more grass-roots prospective. The journalists attempt to get as close to the real story as possible by often times embedding themselves in the communities where the stories are taking place. They rely on information from first point-of-contact, which gives the topic and the substance of the information more truth and clarity. It allows for the truth to come through whatever channels necessary. It exposes what is actually happening to people on the ground. Using the old red team versus the blue team argument/debate style can sometimes stifle the truth. It limits the truth to being two-dimensional, with no allowance for multifaceted conclusions and solutions to be reached. To find the most substantive information it is often necessary to search in obscure places. Any good journalist knows the value of those obscurities which often hold the most weighted information.
