Thanks very much for your response. I discovered this site during my Christmas vacation and now look forward to reading it in the the new year. I will give you the same benefit of the doubt that I am willing to give Mel Gibson. I have only read your Will Smith story, so clearly not enough information to label you as a liberal blogger, but it struck a chord with me that you would choose Gibson versus so many others to contrast against Smith. Gibson’s tirade was alcohol fused and thus not similar to someone like Louis Farrakhan who is on the record with outrageous and sober anti semitic rhetoric. Will Smith is no Louis Farrakhan!

Anyway, thanks again for taking your time to respond and for providing this forum for public discussion.

-George

There must be a new ‘Mike’ on this thread. The 5:42 post is not from the usual Mike.

If that weren’t bad enough, the traditional press has virtually stopped reporting on its own bad poll numbers (including similar poll results from Zogby, Harris, and Gallup). So much for press lectures about transparency and “trusted sources.” This kind of behavior comes from an industry that publishes weekly polls about everyone else. Apparently, some polls are more newsworthy than others; but this is not leadership by example which the press touts for other institutions.

The traditional press (print and broadcast) enjoyed a virtual monopoly over news and information for some 40-50 years. That information monopoly is now collapsing due to shifts in technology like the internet. In other words, thanks to the attributes of monopoly behavior, the press owns a huge piece of its current state including the lack of public trust.

David Shaw, legendary press reporter for the Los Angeles Times, had the temerity to write decades ago that the press was not doing a good job of holding itself “morally accountable for its actions.” Many of his colleagues shunned him for daring to apply the principles and practices of good journalism to the press. Not much changed 30 years later when the NYT appointed its first public editor.

How many journalists mark the anniversary of Eason Jordan’s op-ed piece in the NYT back in 2003 when the then-head of CNN News (“the most trusted name in news”) belatedly admitted to censoring the news of torture, terror and assassination plots out of Iraq under Saddam Hussein for 12 years (yes, years). This staggering admission of censorship and supression of information stirred virtually no qualms of conscience or warnings about trust among the traditional news media.

And it was an LA blogger who challenged Reuters’ use of doctored photos from Lebanon. Why didn’t our trusted sources in the traditional media catch that?

The internet and new media bring their own set of challenges — and they also open up a treasure chest of opportunities. Among other advantages, today’s citizens now have access to more diverse sources of news and information than ever before. And they have access to primary sources of information on a scale never before imagined. Just as important, we now have more competitive sources of news and information, which mean a better system of checks and balances.

Well, Larry, something must be wrong with me as I haven’t quite figured that out…would you please define “liberal blogger” so that I and others who correspond with you would better understand what you are not?

I am not a liberal blogger, and if you haven’t figured that out, there is something wrong.

That’s the problem in this country. Too many divisions, too much labeling.

Say what you want about me and my perspectives. But don’t label me.

Thanks George

There is an eight hundred pound gorilla in the chat room. Plese have the courage to repond to the fair allegation that you smeared Mel Gibson in the defense of Will Smith. This idea that you can preach to row house philadelphia and think we dont get your nuance is very anoyinging, this blog is read by all your liberal friends,and theyve been tautning me that you dont need to repond to liberal bias allegations.

-G