[jjbrouwer]

...broadcast journalism essentially never tells you anything that you need to know on a real-time basis.

It was pretty effective in telling us about:

The death of Princess Diana

The death of JFK Jnr

The attack on the World Trade Center.

Sure, we would have heard about those things on the Net. BUT, the huge Internet traffic generated by big stories like the above inevitably mean servers grind to a halt and it takes ages to load webpages.

On the other hand, you could just flick on the TV and tune into rolling news provided by CNN, Fox News, BBC etc.

Sure they are all slanted. But if you watch enough of those channels you will be able to build up a fair picture.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Our republic is designed to work admirably if most of the electorate is not up to date on every cause celebre. Leave aside traffic and weather, and broadcast journalism essentially never tells you anything that you need to know on a real-time basis.

------------------------------------------------------------

It was pretty effective in telling us about:

The death of Princess Diana
The death of JFK Jnr
The attack on the World Trade Center.

------------------------------------------------------------

I will grant the need to learn about the disruptions caused in NYC, especially of traffic. But WTC is, thankfully, a one-of-a-kind event. Do we sit glued to a radio or TV 24/7 so that we will know instantly if another such incident occurs? Do we lie awake nights listening to the radio to learn of such a thing instantly? Clearly you are paraniod if that sounds like a good idea.

As to the other two I await your explanation as to what, exactly, you think I might have done about JFK's assassination or the princess' death, had I been given a blow-by-blow account of it in real time?