Tuesday, May 27, 2008

Does the Internet make us "dumber"

I get irritated to tears every time I have to listen to some sanctimonious do-gooder - usually a leftist - tell me how I am receiving such a limited world view because I don't get the "right"kinds of information or "both sides of the story" from my news and media sources.

It is from this mindset that their justification for the so-called fairness doctrine rears its serpentine head. As usual, they know what's best for us, including what information we receive and where we receive it.

Case in point is this column from, of all places, the FoxNews website. According to this joker,
When you pick up The New York Times and look at the front page, you get a general perspective on world events. As you page through the newspaper, you see all sorts of interesting articles that you might not have read if you were merely surfing the Net for news.

Over time, this sort of happenstance approach to information gives a reader perspective on things. You have a sense as to what the economy is doing. You know if some international disaster has occurred. You are more tuned in.

This is going away...

So the audience goes to the Net to get information — most of it without perspective, and, thus, the days of a wide public perspective of the world are almost gone....
I swear, for some people the sun rises and sets with the New York Times. I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh much anymore, but he always did have a saying that totally resonated with me. He had a wonderful answer to his critics who complained that his show was so one-sided and didn't provide "equal time" to opposing points of view. Rush would always say - and I presume still does say - "I AM equal time!"

What the author of this column doesn't seem to understand is that if newspapers like his beloved New York Times actually gave both sides of the story and an equal perspective, I wouldn't find it necessary to check with my "biased" news sources on the Internet. Besides, the worst part about the establishment press is not so much the bias in what they report, it is the bias in what they choose NOT to report.

A case in point is the series of rhetorical gaffes that Barack Obama has been uttering lately in his speeches, such as telling a Memorial Day crowd that his great uncle helped liberate Auschwitz, even though it was the Soviets that did that. If his goofs had come out of the mouths of Dan Quayle or George W. Bush, the establishment press would be having a field day. Instead, you find nary a word from the New York Times, or other establishment media sources. If you do find any mention of it, it is prefaced by the qualifier that Obama's gaffes are currently the fodder of the Republicans or the right-wing blogs; as if it is a big deal only because those nasty right-wingers are making it a big deal.

When then-Vice President Quayle misspelled "potatoe", you didn't see the press talking about how the "left-wing media" was abuzz with Quayle's gaffe, now did you?

Note to you lefties out there: there are more sources of information available than just your own. Do us all a favor, and quit bellyaching that we aren't all drinking from the same vat of Kool-Aid as you are.

Good Day to You, Sir

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Most of my lefty friends won't listen to Hugh Hewitt or visit blogs I recommend - that's open-mindedness for ya!!!

George

Darren said...

Hugh Hewitt is not only entertaining, but usually pretty intellectually stimulating. He has on Christopher Hitchens, Mark Steyn, Irwin Chemerinsky, and others weekly. He plays long snippets of speeches--not just sound bytes--and conducts lengthy interviews with people. Great show.

Larry said...

There is at least one of us who does not (quite deliberately and with malice aforethought) read the New York Times. Or the Los Angeles Times. Or Andrew Sullivan. Or most of the Omaha Weird Harold (which I pay for!).

There is a reason for that.

Chanman said...

In addition to Hugh Hewitt (whom I enjoy very much) is Michael Medved. As much as I often disagree with Michael Medved on some issues (he is a huge McCain fan), he is on the right side of the aisle, and I believe he has on more callers that DISagree with him than agree with him.

How is that one-sided?