More than 60 percent of the American people don't trust the press. Why should they? They've been reading "The Da Vinci Code" and marveling at its historical insights. I have nothing against a fine thriller, especially one that claims the highest of literary honors: it's a movie on the page. But "The Da Vinci Code" is not a work of nonfiction. If one more person talks to me about Dan Brown's crackerjack research I'm shooting on sight.The novel's success does point up something critical. We're happier to swallow a half-baked Renaissance religious conspiracy theory than to examine the historical fiction we're living (and dying for) today.
This is an excellent rant on the failure of news organizations today, with a troubling concern about what's filling the vacuum.
Wikipedia is mentioned, having quickly become the
people's encyclopedia, but
just because a large number of people endorse consensus-driven content does not make it automatically correct.
How, for instance, does a publicly-edited resource like Wikipedia insure accuracy when dealing with contentious subjects?
The answer is: it can't; all it can do is say: "This topic is being debated."
How authoritative, that is.
So you can't trust the gatekeepers -- the traditional news organizations and networks, they're only after a profit, as they've always been.
And you can't really trust the vast, unwashed masses either, at least not without a fat dose of skepticism.
So what to do, when practically anyone can be their own minister of propaganda? (Registration required or just
bugmenot).
b/w: bookslut