By 1935, certainly, most big-city newspapers were owned by the elite, but they were wise enough not to run them themselves.  Papers were generally edited by former reporters and the reporters came up through the ranks, often starting as copyboys (and, yes, it was predominately boys in those days) and learning their trade on the job.  Few went to college; fewer still to journalism school.  Hardly any came from upper-class backgrounds.

Today, journalism is an elite profession.  It is almost impossible to enter it without the appropriate degrees and--if you want a really good job--degrees from top schools.  The pay (except at the few remaining "local" outlets) is better than it has ever been and the prestige of the profession is quite high.

What Jim Branch was trying to explain to Sharon Norwood, that effective journalism has to be by the same people it is for, has been almost completely lost.

There was something empowering, for the people of the United States, in media that reflected them.  For one thing, the people could trust that the press wasn't trying to put anything over on them--after all, it was a part of them.  For another, the people didn't feel patronized by the press--as often happens today, when carefully coifed news people interview "average citizens" who look, well, as frumpy as the rest of us.

One of the goals of ePMedia has been the reclaiming of the media for the people of America.  In fact, the appellation "citizen journalist" has that right behind its choice.

My question for all of us involved here (me, as much as anyone) is simply this: How can we insure that we don't (like the pigs in George Orwell's Animal Farm) become (to paraphrase Bob Dylan) "our enemies in the moment that we preach"?

There may be no good answer to this question, other than making sure we keep it constantly on our minds, but I would like to hear from others on the topic--if for no reason than my repetitiveness will soon take on broken-record qualities!