Replies

"spent only an hour a day surfing reputable blog sights"

I have an idea that where I hope the next presidential election will ignore the public debate floor. I like to compare President "W" to the Prophet Moses. Moses didn't lead the Israelites into the Promise Land, but he did help them out of bondage...and they both have that speech impediment thing too ;-) . Arnold Schwarzenegger avoided debate for as long as possible. Political debates make my skin crawl. There doesn't have to be an ounce of truth told for a politician to be a convincing salesman. Personally, I'd rather was my time buying a used car from a shyster. Perhaps we conservatives can encourage a "blog" debate where a candidate is evaluated by what he can research and reference on the web and what brains he (OR SHE!!!) can staff on their team (or future cabinet). This would mean so much more to me than watching someone like Clinton biting his lip and pumping his fist for an emotional photogenic image.

The old school media will sit up and take notice when they start getting hit in the pocket.

I have a bad feeling that Fox would only look at web surfing blogs if it has a serious (or is that series) conservative competitor. So far, only EWTN can out serve all other networks for dishing out Truth, and Mother Angelica can do that hopping on one leg. Not bad for an old gal, eh?

But EWTN is light years ahead of consumer news and majority of views haven't graduated to that level. If another conservative channel could incorporate the web as it's daily feed to us info junkies, it would edge FOX news to be that much sharper. Thus, it will have to be FOX that pushes itself.

I've long thought that Murdoc needs two news channels similar to what CNN has. One that's strictly headline (with a media watch that exposes malicious leftists propaganda), and another that does warm and fuzzy morning shows (which I loathe, but someone must watch them because every network has one), and then switches to domestic and world business as soon as the stock market opens. This 2nd channel can have headline news squirted in every 15 minutes). The Internet injection can fit into either one, but it would best serve the headline news channel given the faster speed of delivery.

What works against the mass information gathering is verifying the hype and rumor before broadcasting an alert (to prevent alarmism which is bad enough without the Internet). Perhaps a "trust club" must be erected with solemn affirmations to not exploit or manipulate data, image, sound, facts, and people in general. Otherwise, the mass news gathering reverts back to what the networks are like, and what we had before FOX came around.

Many news agencies are still using satellite feed which is slow, expensive, and quite unreliable when compared to submarine cable--an industry still recovering from the popped tech bubble (Worldcom, 360, Global Crossing, etc.). As the submarine cable industry recovers from its disastrous scandals that made Enron look like a simple "whoopsie" key punch error, reporting will have much better video transfers, conferencing, live feeds, and HUGE bandwidth (or is that "hughe" bandwidth). Given that both satellite and submarine cable both send info at the speed of light, what makes the cable much better for conferencing is that there's such a shorter delay between pauses (satellites are very far away and the distance traveled is doubled considering signals have to return).

What will further revolutionize the available news is that anybody can add information to public awareness from a hand held video camera downloaded right to the Internet. It's only been a matter of bandwidth, submarine cable station shore landings, branching units, and wireless technologies. Knowing this brings to light why so many leftists and EU self-interested socialist have been demanding that the US Military hand over control of the Internet to other nations (which we should NEVER EVER DO!).

Based on some of the stories that Brit Hume does, particularly his "two minutes from the political grapevine", I gather he or someone who works for him reads blogs because some of the items are only seen on blogs. Part of the problem with most of the media is laziness. It takes time, effort and legwork to get a story right. Example, when Major Garrett exposed that the Red Cross was stationed 2 miles from the Superdome and was prevented from bringing aid by Louisiana state authorities, he responded to Hume's question about whether this was a hard story to track down that, "(paraphrased)no the information was there for any reporter to find." Good reporting need not be difficult, it takes a willingness to look for facts, even if you don't like where they take you (go against your pre-conceived notions or ideological inclination). The problem with Fox, as it has become so popular, has been worshipping at the altar of "Fair and Balanced" instead of revering "Right vs Wrong".