The excuse that a discussion held without the presence of media is akin to a “safe’” environment is quite disrespectful, and incomprehensible ... unless you believe the media has an ulterior motive.

I am sure there are decent, well-meaning, honest media people, but I wouldn’t let a known reporter into my home, nor into the internal discussions of my church. I would much rather read the 50 blog entries from actual participants then the processed, canned, slanted report from a commercial reporter.

I,for one, do not feel “safe” in the presence of reporters and would not consider holding a sensitive discussion in their presence. The utter corruption of the commercial media (newspapers, broadcase, and internet) has been obvious for a hundred years, from the yellow journalists of the late 19th century through Dan Rather.

First, newspapers and television/radio are mostly commercial enterprises, prostituting themselves to their markets. It’s true that journalists and editors are generally left-wing, politically, but the salient factor is that if their stuff didn’t sell, they wouldn’t have jobs.  Specifically, if their stuff didn’t sell to the affluent, materialist, (largely) urban class, they wouldn’t have jobs. It’s about demographics. For example, there is a great deal of discretionary money in the gay community (few kids to put through college, you know), which makes it helpful for the local newspaper to support issues dear to those folks.  White liberals (who tend to have more money and fewer kids, as well) really need to feel good about racial issues, so the local media needs to spotlight the plight of minorities done wrong by The Man.  There is nothing ulterior about this process at all. And, of course ,for the trailor park set, there’s blow-dried airheads running around shoving microphone’s in peoples’ faces asking inane questions about whatever the cheap thrilling topic of the day is.