I hear your point, but let me respond to one thing.
>>>You say it is so we can know the enemy - I call BS - I think conservatives are prone to an unhealthy fascination with the fake news<<<
Some so called “Conservatives” might be, but I guess I believe that people who Post here are immune. Then again, I could just be wearing Rose Colored Glasses. #8^)
I suppose we all wear various shades of rose colored glasses.
FR is pretty darn great - certainly enough for me to keep coming back. The self censoring thing is a pet peeve of mine, so I probably get carried away sometimes.
Years ago during the Clinton years, my father-in-law was living with us - he grew up in a time when there were 3 news channels and a couple newspapers - nobody questioned whether the news was biased - it was the obligation of an educated adult to have in his library “the classics”, and to have read them. A well informed citizen read the NYT, the local newspaper and watched the local 5 o’clock news. That’s just the way it was. Later that translated into CNN as well for him.
He couldn’t understand how I could watch Fox News and not CNN, or choose not to watch Clinton’s state of the Union address. He would call me into the room when Clinton or Teddy Kennedy or some other leftist was doing a press conference - or if Dan Rather was listing Leftist talking points - I was just not interested and I’d walk out of the room rather than listen. He could not understand this.
He asked me why an educated man shouldn’t “listen to both sides”.
I tried to explain that when he was growing up the media was different - it was very difficult for a writer to get a book published - or a commentator to host a news program - the competition was intense and the standards of excellence and objectivity were much, much higher - there was a limitted amount of books published and programs aired, and they were far more likely to have been vetted for objectivity, reason and sound journalism.
I tried to explain that today (late 1990’s), the media is far, far different. Anyone can publish, promote and distribute a book fairly easily and cheaply - anyone can start a blog - there are thousands of networks and channels and they run 24/7. Due to the Internet, one can achieve name recognition for the strangest of reasons and then write a book or get a show. There’s no guarantee at all that just because a book is s best seller that it is worth reading - there is no guarantee at all that just because a reality show (or a news show) is popular, that it is worth watching. There’s no end to what you could read or listen to - and most of it is unvetted garbage.
At a time in history when there were only a couple hundred important books in the library - an educated man might aspire to read them all and call it a virtue. The idea of limiting what he read would be unthinkable.
In the age of the Internet and cable, an educated man needs to filter - and pick and choose - there is so much media being directed at his eyes and his ears, thete is no longer any virtue in being a sponge and soaking up everything - it is mostly “media pollution” stinking up the air waves.
So if Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Dan Rather or Bill Moyer had something to say, I knew from experience and experimentation that that was a good time for me to do some gardening or take out the trash or light the grill.
I don’t think he really understood what I was saying. It seems like most people don’t understand that the Information Age has brought about profound changes in the way we need to approach our information gathering - just as “work ethic” is not as straight forward in the Information Age as it was in the Agricultural Age and the Industrial Age, information gathering is not as straight forward - the quantity of media is thousand times greater, while the quality is a thousandth as great - the emphasis now must be on selectivity.
Sorry about the long rant