Freedom of the Press is enshrined in the US Constitution not just because the Founding Fathers were nice guys, but because it was believed that a representative democracy could not function unless the public were well informed enough to base their votes on actual facts rather than which candidate has a nicer moustache or some other insignificant factor.

The problem is, of course, that our fair and balanced media have become not so fair and not so balanced. While this subject deserves semester long Poli-Sci analyses, Emerge would simply like to point out a couple of interesting facts.

Over in England, the media has gotten issue-based in a really unusual way. Rather than assuming a radical, polemic point of view (like many folks think Fox News has over here) UK newspaper The Independent devoted an entire issue to Project Red not by making a policy decision to only discuss issues of AIDS in the developing world from one position, but by making Bono guest editor for the issue.

It was a bold move for a highly respected newspaper and it reflects a desire by the public to not just understand this issue better, but to get it's information from a trusted source with deep personal investment.

Another example of visionary British media taking a chance to help make the public aware of a pressing social issue is Dazed and Confused's 1 Million Faces Exhibition, which they are hosting in their London gallery. Part of Amnesty International's Control Arms campaign, the exhibition and surrounding press seek to advance the agenda of Amnesty International while bringing part of the magazine's Human Rights Issue to life.

While the Brits are exploring meaningful and compelling issues of worldwide import, US media are still debating the validity of the scientific consensus on global climate change, and the suddenly urgent matter of illegal immigration. The issue of AIDS in Africa remains a back-burner topic in the American media, as do discussions of executive malfeasance, the Global War on Terror's failure to further the American Agenda, simmering discontent with American foreign policy around the world, and a bazillion other hot-button issues in the press overseas.

One could say it's a sad state of affairs that it takes a fashion magazine doing aHuman Rights Issue to get the Control Arms petition out to the public in London. Or that it's a shame that Bono is the leading spokesperson for AIDS and debt relief in Africa these days. But at the end of the day, it's not so important who is talking but that these subjects are in fact talked about. And here in the US, not even aging rockers seem to have enough juice to get the public to get really critical of their government and media.

For that, American's have a small but highly motivated progressive media, who are especially furious with the mainstream media's kid-glove treatment of the most unpopular President in memory Jamison Foser has penned a fascinating comparative analysis of the treatment of GW Bush and Bill Clinton that sheds some light onto the alarming failures of the media here in the US. While his article for Media Matters is far too long to get into here, suffice it to say that it illuminates a long-standing pattern of media failings that make initiatives like Project RED all the more compelling and necessary.

Of course all this raises a few questions, the most important for EMERGE being:

If the media cannot or will not deliver honest and valuable information necessary for informed democratic society, will more brands step up and execute campaigns similar to Project Red to help keep these pressing issues on the table?

It appears you don't have Flash installed.