It took a war in Iraq to get me to really appreciate the
differences in the ubiquitous
”
trust us
”
media, but when the informational wheat and chaff finally parted
it was clear that one of the few truly balanced news sources was in
a place I wouldn’t have thought to look.
It took a war in Iraq to get me to really appreciate the differences in the ubiquitous “trust us” media, but when the informational wheat and chaff finally parted it was clear that one of the few truly balanced news sources was in a place I wouldn’t have thought to look.
It’s been about a month since I deleted Fox (aka Faux) News from my TV’s programmed channels and I’m about to do the same with MSNBC, since it’s hard to tell the difference between the two unless you have the time to count and compare their shots at liberals – who, both networks seem to believe, are all anti-American because they think “freedom fries” is silly, don’t genuflect before George Bush nor believe his every word to be direct from the neo-scriptures. (I wonder – does God say “noo-klee-er” or “new-clur”?)
That leaves not very much in the way of tube credibility. The “major” networks have to cram news into bites of two-minute maximums over a half-hour broadcast, which is hardly enough to satisfy someone with a real jones for news. Even the “special” hour-long broadcasts on NBC, CBS or ABC come off like a LeMenu microwave dinner when your palate is moist for linguine and clams.
That leaves CNN, but “the most trusted name in news” watched as Fox’s ratings shot up more than 300 percent after the U.S. attacked Iraq, and in classic boardroom panic its managers responded – too late – by allowing it to become a pale imitation of its former pursuer, as well as of its former self.
For awhile I went to C-SPAN and appreciated its lack of bias – the anchors who take the phone calls don’t sling epithets at the callers if they don’t agree with them; imagine that. But I soon fell prey to an admitted shortcoming: I like a bit of hell-raising, but no more in-your-face than The McLaughlin Group. Even Pat Buchanan is lightly buttered toast compared to the rabid Bill O’Reilly and his (or Rush Limbaugh’s) wannabe, Sean Hannity. And don’t even talk to me about MSNBC’s “Scarborough Country.”
O’Reilly, Hannity and Joe Scarborough were given TV shows for the same reason that simians are given cages at the zoo – so people can walk by and look and point from a distance too great for the caged ones to reach behind them, grab a handful and fling it with any hope of finding their mark. And, so the viewers can’t throw back.
So why isn’t a newspaper reporter getting his news from newspapers? Well, here’s another admission: I like the immediacy of electronic media. When there’s time to sit down and read an analysis and other angles of the appetizers TV gives us, there’s still nothing that beats something you can fold, put down and pick up again, not to mention re-read at your leisure.
But here’s the aforementioned “unexpected” part: Newspapers do have a challenger, if you know where to look.
I resisted online news for a long time, for the standard reasons – mainly that, similar to TV, its focus is too much on being fast and not enough on being accurate. I’ve seen some unforgivable mistakes on Internet news sites, and some inexplicable ones – such as the abrupt disappearance last November of a story from MSNBC.com about a Bush… uh, misstatement… when he said an intelligence report showed that Iraq was close to developing nuclear weapons when, in fact, the report said just the opposite. It was the lead story on MSNBC’s Web site for a couple of hours, and then it was gone – not just from the top spot, but from the site altogether.
(Certainly, newspapers make mistakes. But when they’re brought to our attention, we correct them. I have yet to see an Internet news site – or a TV news station – correct an error. They report it the right way when forced to, but never acknowledge that a mistake was made – not unlike getting rid of beer spilled on the carpet at a high-school kegger party with a hair dryer so your folks won’t smell it. And by the way, kids – that doesn’t really work.)
So what’s really “the most trusted name in news” these days? For my money – and that’s a bonus – it’s Salon.com. Tough and left-leaning, it also has a conservative voice. It neither waves flags nor burns them. And, if you’re willing to watch about 20 seconds worth of ads, its “day pass” is free.
If only you could take it into the bathroom.
