In a world with Dan Rather, and as Wired Magazine pulls numerous articles for fake quotes[1], as conservatives are rocked by the scandal of conflicting interests (being paid to write, or being paid for similar things), and numerous similar things, I wonder how John Leo can, with a straight face, tell us that we will lack accountability and verification in the absence of traditional news sources.[2] I am not one to discount the service they provide, though I often do disparage them. After all, how many of my posts would exist without the major news source to back it up? And I am not so foolish as to think Townhall.com could pay all that many of the journalists whose columns make up most of the rest of my posts. Still, time and time again, we have seen a lack of verification happening in the traditional news media, which, to me, says that things could not be worse if we had to categorize our news by how much we trust the source instead of being told we can blindly trust the media. Which reminds me, he seems to share this idea with much of the media "elite" that in the absence of media to tell us what is important, what is true, we would not question it for ourselves. He worries that there would be a higher percentage of gossip and rumor accepted as fact, but we have endured months of speculation over what President Bush's Social Security plan would be, when he had released no details. Who double checks the media? It was hugely noteworthy when ABC decided to investigate "American Idol," hugely noteworthy because it so rarely happens that anyone seriously questions the credibility of a major network. Or at least, no one except the populace who, apparently, are choosing to find their news elsewhere.
On a side note, is this barrage of national and international news even good for us? We all know about the international problems, we hear nightly about the latest horrors, but who knows what happened in their own town? Could you tell me who was married in your parish this weekend? I could not, could you tell me who moved out in your neighborhood this week? Who moved in? The barrage of national and international news, the barrage of sensationalism, is depressing, I cannot stand to watch it on the television, and I read it online only out of boredom, I am aware it really is not all that good for me (except to the extent that I do find motivation to write about it and thus exercise my intellect in some minimal way). Perhaps in the absence of the major news sources there would be fewer investigations of Global Warming, perhaps we would be less likely to know of the problems in the Congo. But then too, perhaps we would be less interested in solving everything at a Federal level and more interested in the decisions our Board of Supervisors make. We would be more interested in the programs going on in our parishes. We would be more interested in these things because they are accessible to the unfunded individual, they are immediate to our lives, and so would continue to make its way to our daily intake of news. When the overall volume decreases, the noise to signal ratio simply cannot stay constant, people, with less to wade through, will more quickly learn what to pay attention to.
[1] http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,67428,00.html?tw=newsletter_topstories_html [2] http://www.townhall.com/columnists/johnleo/jl20050509.shtml