New York Times media reporter Tim Arango has a story (5/20/09) on one very serious repercussion from shrinking corporate news outlets:

Opponents of the death penalty looking to exonerate wrongly accused prisoners say their efforts have been hobbled by the dwindling size of America's newsrooms, and particularly the disappearance of investigative reporting at many regional papers.

In the past, lawyers opposed to the death penalty often provided the broad outlines of cases to reporters, who then pursued witnesses and unearthed evidence.

Now, the lawyers complain, they have to do more of the work themselves and that means it often doesn't get done. They say many fewer cases are being pursued by journalists, after a spate of exonerations several years ago based on the work of reporters.

The decline in newsroom resources has also hampered efforts by death-penalty opponents to search for irrefutable DNA evidence that an innocent person has been executed in America.

Even though, as Arango informs us, "since 1992, 238 people in the United States, some who were sitting on death row, have been exonerated of crimes through DNA testing," the collapsing for-profit media business model is resulting in a further abrogation of their role in U.S. democracy. Just one example: "In a case in Tennessee, DNA evidence from a rape and murder for which a man was executed in 2006, but for which doubts about his guilt exist, sits untested because [Innocence Project co-founder Barry] Scheck and others have not been able to recruit a local newspaper or media organization to become a plaintiff."

See the FAIR magazine Extra!: "Enabling False Convictions: Exoneration Coverage Overlooks Media Role" (11-12/07) by Jon Whiten

Media critic blogger Mark Howard (News Corpse, 5/16/09) has a problem with the voluble media controversy over "the fact that Obama’s pro-choice position is in conflict with [Notre Dame] University's Catholic principles"--namely, "neither the Catholic protesters nor the media ever threw similar tantrums when George W. Bush delivered the commencement speech in 2001, after receiving his honorary degree":

Every good Catholic knows that the church is strictly opposed to capital punishment. Since Bush set records for carrying out death sentences when he was governor of Texas, you would think that the same guardians of virtue that are protesting Obama, who has never personally signed an abortion certificate, would have been out in force for a man who presided over 152 executions. But there was nary a peep. There were no bishops signing petitions opposing Bush's appearance. There were no protests on campus. There were no students refusing to participate in graduation ceremonies. And there were no cameras from national news networks circling like buzzards.

If these Catholic Crusaders are truly interested in demonstrating their piety without prejudice, they should immediately call for Notre Dame to revoke Bush's honorary degree. If the press is honestly endeavoring to be objective, they should pose this question to the protesters.

Making clear that he doesn't "fault the pro-life movement's efforts to advance their beliefs through protest and civil disobedience," Howard maintains his own right to "fault the media for the inflated sense of importance they bestow on such a tiny assemblage of adversaries. Polls show overwhelming support for the president's visit to Notre Dame."