| | | >> We used to have and generally trust our authorities in context.
Yeah. Way back. The last such person I can remember Tim Russert, and before that was David Brinkley.
>> The sunlight is not supposed to be a thousand flowers blooming half-baked opinions and made up stuff.
Idealistically. But there is no reporting like that going on anymore. Realistically, you have around 95% of reporters who are hard-core Democrat voters, and simply cannot be objective. More importantly, the news reporting services like Reuters and AP are entirely left leaning. I'm still looking for moderate or right leaning news service, I don't think they exist.
The only news I subscribe to today is Racket News (Matt Taibbi & others), which I find to be the most intelligent news coverage available -- but little staff and can only be useful within a narrow context. But I enjoy the weekly podcast with Matt & Walter Kirn (even though it can be more humor than news sometimes). Taibbi is 100% honest in all cases. The Gold Standard. If it covers the key interests of the day. This week, they discussed the 60 Minutes/Harris interview scandal in detail -- and at one point Kirn actually refers to the breaking of the story on X.com. Much of the media have not or only scarcely covered a pretty outrageous scandal for 60 Minutes.
But to your point, when there are no authoritative sources, the next best thing is a thousand flowers blooming, because you can ultimately take away something meaningful from it. It may or not have balance, but it will sample the range of topics and generally provide links to supporting stories.
It is not, for example, an echo chamber like, e.g., this thread or network or cable news; there exist some diversity of views even though Dems are clearly trying to boycott it to death. |
|
