Quite some time ago I asked others here what websites they frequent. DB mentioned Dailykos.com. Since then I have been frequenting that site every day, along with other websites.
The reason I mention this is that after reading KevinG's posting, it made clear to me how important alternative media outlets are. Of his comments, I see the exact opposite: we have days and days of media exposure of Sandy Berger "stealing" documents, only to have the Wall Street Journal report the National Archives stated no documents were missing. This is then contrasted to the Justice Dept now reporting that Sen Richard Shelby divulged classified information to FoxNews and to me, there has been barely a blip on the news about this. Then toss in the release of the CIA agent's name.
KevinG also mentions Gen Tommy Franks and the seemingly lack of exposure in regards to his recent book release. I've seen him all over promoting his book - Nightline, MSNBC, CNN, FoxNews, have all had him on. Oddly, on Nightline he made a remark that shocked me - he stated the US is probably more disliked than ever before outside of our borders.
As for Laura Bush's media comments, I would assume just as Bush claims the NAACP is openly hostile to him, the media probably feels the same way because of the behavior foisted on the general media by the right (calling a report a "major asshole" at a rally or sticking one's tongue out probably doesn't help), so I see it as a reap what we sew sort of thing.
What these blogs and alternative media outlets do is report on so much under-reported news that the American public refuses to seek out.
Additionally, I have been reading media critique journals (Columbia Journalism Review, American Journalism Review, the former Content, et cetera) for years now and it is amazing to me how many errors exist in all reporting and how most media outlets fail to follow the core tenets of pure journalism (second sourcing, documentary evidence, resistance to "scoop" reporting and so on).
Also, now days the media rarely runs corrections or retractions to correct their erros.
Lastly, I think when anyone receives information from any source two things must be asked: Is it reliable and what is/are the intention/intentions of the source. For example, most outlets are out there to make a profit first, report accurately secondly and those who pay the bills hold too much influence over the content of the information. We can't even pay proper respect to our soliders coming back through Dover because the powers that deliever that information most likely are concerned it will offend their powers that be.
As far as reliablity, I guess that is found within the eyes of the beholder. Myself, I use one's past track record to gauge reliablity.
Thanks for a place to ramble on....
Eric
