Judging by their coverage, many in the press believe that the Cold War thaw has turned into a torrent, and the old dichotomy of America, defender of freedom, versus the Soviet Union, expansionist totalitarian empire, no longer clarifies or explains the onrush of new facts and possibilities. With this broad agreement, however, has also come puzzlement. A global transformation that was not supposed to have been possible is upon us. Instead of the single, reliable Cold War framework that told us how the world worked, there is now a contest of frameworks, from which no new victor has yet emerged. The fancy word is paradiKn7, meaning a rough definition of the situation and a way of explaining it that gives meaning to events and suggests what is and is not worth looking at.
Journalists can no more do without paradigms than they can cease writing prose.
For almost half a century, the Cold War was the master paradigm, the grand narrative, for journalism as well as politics. Given such assumptions the question raised, for example, by the revolutions in Vietnam and Angola, or by the socialist government in Chile, was whether would extend Soviet power. Experts, honing the paradigm, presumed that the Cold War was necessary and permanent, and interpreted all events in it's light. Rounding up former officials and think-tank pundits, the press could write orchestral variations on the standard themes. There were twists and turning points, but all within a setting that left little room for genuine surprise.