So many bloggers desperately want to appear active, scholarly and involved that they will write and write, only to look like a line of hamsters in wheels responding to the same stimulus. The contribution is essentially worthless (“I agree;” “Look at this, makes you think!” etc.) and it is clearly self-serving: I have weighed in. Maybe someday I will be relevant enough that my opinion is all that matters, rather than an actual contribution.

However, I had a different reaction to your lead-in example. Obviously there is very good content on the web that is available now that would never have been before the spread of the medium, but there is also a plethora of worthless dribble that can be difficult to sift through. Considering how much crap is out there (and how the rush to break news has led to even more error prone reporting), I have a great deal of respect for actual quality journalism.

When I read the Krauthammer article, I cheered inside, not because it defended Palin, but because it ripped Gibson. Considering how much potential competition is out there, the major media outlets deserve to be held to a higher standard in their reporting and it is disturbing how many Gibsons (and I don’t mean to focus too much on him) are out there who try so hard to appear smarter than they really are, but ultimately deliver an incomplete product: not all questions are asked, the handling of the material and issues at hand is insufficient, and the public discourse is constrained.

I heard news defined once as information that is actionable. If it’s not actionable, then the information amounts to nothing more than entertainment. There is so much information noise out there anymore that it’s difficult to find real news – information that is actionable.

It’s easy to get wrapped up in the bullshit, this post was a nice reminder for me to stay on track. Thanks, Man.

Thanks.

Listen, I know cringe and stew on anything related to Palin, but Krauthammer was the first to use the term “Reagan Doctrine” back in the 80′s that was ultimately the basis for Gibson’s question. He’s a Harvard-Med educated, Pulitzer Prize winning physiologist who can write about anything he wants to, anywhere, and because of your own bias you decide to lump him in with a few thousand bloggers typing in their bathrobes?

Just because you assume this wasn’t worth following doesn’t make it so.

I’m looking at Charles comment non-politically. I can only feel pity for someone who had to write 1,00 word defending what was one of the most stunning displays of ignorance ever on television.

However, I can’t help but wonder how much more credibility your writing might have if you didn’t bash the right with every politically related anecdote you share in your posts.