Sounds good. But what the author seems to fear (and I would tend to agree with him on this) is that there will be no new impartial media out there to replace the flawed Old Media. As he mentions, the news websites that are most popular at the moment, are anything but impartial. Blogs are almost invariably partisan. Is impartiality doomed?
Journalists and the MSM don’t have to be impartial, fair, or even honest. Neither do the bloggers.
The ruination of the MSM stems not from lack of impartiality, but lack of (wish there was a better word) diversity. Once the MSM started marching in lock-step (goose-step?) people had to look elsewhere for views they could tolerate. That’s why Fox news can get such an audience even though they are merely more balanced than the rest. Rush too came along and a very large portion of the country finally had someone speaking to their views.
There used to be multiple newspapers in every medium sized city to cater to differing views. Consolidation and group-think left people with no alternatives until the internet came along.
Liberals never will understand the internet because it is individual-based not elite-mandated. The internet used to be blissfully void of liberals. I think the 2000 election finally clued them in that there were a lot of people who just ignored the elite media in favor of real reporting on-line.
Well, after giving this serious thought, the only downside that comes to mind is this; the paper newspaper is perfectly designed for holding with two hands while sitting on the throne with one's legs spread. I have tried it with a laptop on my lap but one has to keep their legs together while in this position which is not conducive to performing the act at hand. I suppose one of those stands musicians use for their music might work for holding one's laptop - I might give that a try. If the paper newspaper is on it's way out I will have to think of something for sure...