[x]

Your argument might have packed a bigger punch thirty years ago when the broadcast networks had a virtual monopoly on audio and video news. Maybe it will be stronger twenty or thirty years from now if media concentration continues. But in our day, cable, satellite, and the Internet have cut substantially into the broadcast news oligopoly. Look at the declining ratings of the big networks nightly news programs. When you can get the news on your telephone, it may be a sign that times have changed.

I'd agree that broadcast news is mostly entertainment. And unbiased news is an impossibility. But there are better and worse news outlets. Things took a wrong turn when those labelled the quality press or media began to think that "quality" meant holding the same opinions, rather than aspiring to truth. Every established news outlet can point to the tabloid press and feel superior while cutting corners and slanting the news as they see fit.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Your argument might have packed a bigger punch thirty years ago when the broadcast networks had a virtual monopoly on audio and video news. Maybe it will be stronger twenty or thirty years from now if media concentration continues. But in our day, cable, satellite, and the Internet have cut substantially into the broadcast news oligopoly. Look at the declining ratings of the big networks nightly news programs. When you can get the news on your telephone, it may be a sign that times have changed.

Yes, and talk radio too. But the demographics of broadcast viewership are probably skewed toward the lower economic class--those whom the limosine liberals seek to exploit for votes in their effort to seperate themselves from the middle class constituency of the Republican Party. (note that it is not only the "poor" cities but the affluent suburbs which constitute Gore country; Bush won a majority only in the counties which are dominated by the actual middle class.

I'd agree that broadcast news is mostly entertainment. And unbiased news is an impossibility. But there are better and worse news outlets.

Better or worse--or bad and worse? i get the Wall Street Journal and I love its editorial page, but you have to look out for the spin everywhere else in that paper just like all the rest. And that is IMHO because the nature of free competitive journalism is to report news that you can't ignore--"Is Your Drinking Water Safe?" rather than "Boy Scouts Learn About Honor." There exists conservative commentary but no conservative commercial journalism; even Fox News Channel is not conservative but "Fair and Balanced"--giving conservatives an even break in commentary is considered "right-wing" by establishment journalism's standards.

And in news itself rather than commentary, FNC is just as superficial as the rest of them, just not as negative. For example, FNC went just as gaga over the rescue of Jessica Lynch as the rest of the pack. Fine, it was an interesting story--but that militarily insignificant event got equal billing with the news that coalition forces had brushed aside what had apparently been a defensible position the Iraqis held south of Baghdad. The fact was that the dreaded "sandstorm quagmire" had helped destroy the Iraqi army by suckering it into attempting to maneuver--thus exposing the positions of all its vehicles to JStars radar, and allowing the US to bring its precision munitions to bear on those vehicles.

Things took a wrong turn when those labelled the quality press or media began to think that "quality" meant holding the same opinions, rather than aspiring to truth.

What happened was that journalism learned--reached a concensus--to not engage in flame wars but to style concensus "objectivity." And, thereby, to become the establishment. From the self-interested POV of the members of the establishment, it was the right thing to do. IOW, to sell the "sizzle" of objectivity and "the right to know"--but deliver the "steak" of concensus superficiality and negativity.