wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

Certianly the net has done more to INCREASE media literacy than anything else I could think of.

We should not elect our president based on who functions the best in the latest media. ie: the internet.

It brings to mind the Nixon presidential debate that was covered on Radio and Television. The people who heard it on the Radio thought Nixon won the debate. The people who saw it on TV, thought Nixon lost the debate. (This probably had more to do with his 4 o'clock shadow than the issues).

New media is not necessarily good. Look what MTV did to music in the 80's! It ruined it.

Dave

I ONLY READ THE STORY ABOUT SARAH PALIN'S CHILD IN THE NEW YORKER MAGAZINE WEEKS AGO IN A PROFILE SHORTLY AFTER SHE WAS CHOSEN AS VP CANDIDATE. IT SIMPLY GAVE THE FACTS SURROUNDING HER LABOR AND LET THE READER DRAW THE INEVITABLE CONCLUSIONS. AN INTERESTING ARTICLE.

Also,

Can a good solid book, combat the mania of TV News? I have cut back on my consumption of electronic media and use channels like WNYC, C-SPan to get tips on Non-Fiction books on politics, economics and science etc..

Honestly you really don't need to follow the news on a daily basis. You are better off educating yourself so that you can put the news in context.

In light of the real history of the twentieth century, it seems silly to claim that in the past people took more time to do things and therefore did a better job.

They maybe quicker to say what they were going to say anyway now -- which they might as well be. I think you are attributing an authority to a method and a past that does not exist.

This is definitely a pointless discussion -- sticking the proverbial finger in the dike. There is no putting the internet genie back in the bottle. But this problem of real news vs fake or suspect news is hardly new to the internet. What about the National Enquirer? What about Hearst and yellow journalism in the early 20th C. Back when there was only print there were plenty of suspect publications circulating. That's probably why the NY Times took the motto -- All the News That's Fit to Print.

2 issues:

1) It seems to me that the education caliber of many journalists is low. How can someone with only a BA degree in journalism handle the reporting of complex stories. To me they have no real expertise. You have many smart bloggers who have better education and experience than many journalists.

2) What can be done with all the punditry? It seems to me that there are many people who have opinions but do not have the educational qualifications or expertise to talk about a variety issues. The downside of blogging is that there are too many overeducated liberal arts majors (english, philosophy-- See Huffington Post) who are writing about economics, science etc.