I got an incredulous e-mail in response to my post about journalists being conservative, and -- even though it was more or less a play on words and meanings --I thought a brief follow-up would be in order.

OK, I'll admit it. Most journalists are relatively progressive in their politics. Recent surveys once again have demonstrated this.

Now, I will tell you (1) why this is the case, and (2) why it's a non-issue:

1. Journalists generally don't enter the profession to make a boatload of money. If money was their goal, they would apply their college educations and insatiable curiosity in more profitable directions. Young people enter journalism, for the most part, because they want to make a difference. Their egos are fed not by the money they make, but by the impact they have. Journalists have impact by causing change. And change is inherently anti-conservative (although not necessarily anti-Republican.)

2. While individual journalists tend to be progressive, virtually all major media organizations are owned by large corporations that are inherently conservative. There are a small handful of exceptions, but for the most part, companies like General Electric, Disney, News Corp. and Time Warner control our media -- and these organizations have a very strong interest in maintaining the status quo.

So individual media members and their corporate owners are fundamentally at cross-purposes -- like an evenly divided Congress that produces mostly gridlock.

The media is in gridlock today, compared to 30 years ago. Do you think a Woodward and Bernstein could emerge today? I don't. In 2005, the media too often allows the political parties to dictate the agenda, instead of acting as an independent "fourth estate."

I think our only hope may be a return to the advocacy journalism that was so common in our country's past. By advocacy journalism, I don't mean radio or TV loudmouths who spout their political party's talking points and pretend it's their own opinion. I mean advocacy journalism in the style of the reform newspapers of the 19th century -- like William Lloyd Garrison's the Liberator, which beat the drum of abolitionism for 34 years before the rest of the country came around.

Bloggers have a better chance of being this century's William Lloyd Garrisons than traditional journalists do. Bloggers can afford to be truly independent. They can be the journalist-advocates for critical but neglected issues such as poverty and the environment. I encourage all bloggers to take advantage of their opportunity to have an impact.

The Los Angeles Times has an interesting analysis of the change in Tom Cruise's media strategy since he dropped Hollywood PR firm PMK/HBH in favor of a new publicist: his sister Lee Anne De Vette, a fellow Scientologist.

Here's the latest on the broadcast indecency debate as overviewed by USA Today. And here's my take on the subject.

An ESPN columnist has written a nice piece on the Kirk Reynolds debacle. PR man Reynolds was practically run out of town on a stripper pole for producing a media training video for his employer, the San Francisco 49ers.

The video, designed to teach players the do's and don't's of working with the news media, included some R-rated elements (topless strippers, double-entendres)to hold the players' attention. The video was obviously for in-house eyes only, but was leaked to the media -- probably by someone who wanted to see Reynolds fired (which was the outcome).

Fact is, Reynolds was doing his job. He went a bit over the top in an effort to appeal to his audience, but that happens. No real harm was done. The only injuries here -- besides those to Reynolds' career -- are the bumps and bruises suffered by those scrambling into the media pulpit to pronounce themselves holier than thou.

No, that's not a misprint. American journalists -- particularly of the print variety -- are among the most conservative folks on the planet. And it's something that is hurting the newspaper industry from a competitive standpoint.

Newspaper journalists are conservative in the sense that they hold their traditions very dear. Some of these traditions are admirable and important. Others are just silly. Remember the debate in 1997 over whether the New York Times was right to add color photography and "kill off" the Gray Lady? Guess what: gray was great in 1897, but not 1997! Move on.

Considering such Luddite impulses, you can imagine how difficult it has been for the industry to navigate the era of the Web and, now, citizen journalism. Newspapers are finally starting to add blogs, but as a group they aren't impressive. I ran across the blog of one major daily recently where the writers appear to think we care what they had for lunch. (All the important stuff, after all, is covered in the paper, right?)

Don't get me wrong: I love journalists and journalism. I was a newspaper reporter myself. I've been reading the newspaper since I was a kid, and I still read it almost every day. And because I love newspapers, I worry that the industry is not embracing change quickly enough in this new era.

I'm not the only one who's worried. It's why the country's top journalism schools recently unveiled a plan for a total overhaul of their programs. The plan is being funded by the Carnegie Corporation and the Knight Foundation.

"This industry doesn't put its money where its mouth is," said Hodding Carter III, president of the Knight Foundation. "This is an attempt to address the great dirty secret of journalism: that we are inherently conservative about what we do."

I should add that in Dallas, more good things are happening on the journalism education front. Belo recently donated $5 million to enhance the journalism school at SMU, which has enabled the creation of a state-of-the-art digital newsroom.

So there are some signs that newspapers are picking up the pace. But I would urge them to not look back. The competition is gaining speed -- and multiplying rapidly.