So many anchors, commentators, and pundits speak on so many platforms, their collective din borders on the dizzying. As I sample news show after news show, discussion show after discussion show, and gabfest after gabfest, there’s one thing I’m searching to hear but never find. It’s the voice of reason.
Once upon a time there were newspeople who spoke with authority. They not only gave opinions, they told their audience how they arrived at their opinions. Sources were vetted.
There wasn’t the sense that prevails today that any gossip heard in any corridor from any voice will do. There was more skepticism if say, a prominent member of one political party happened to say something about a member of another party. Innuendo wasn’t enough.
There had to be solid, visible evidence. Otherwise, you’re stuck with one person’s word against the other’s. With partisanship so rife among today’s television press, information being reported often suits the political leanings of the presenter rather than facts.
Or more to the point, complete facts. Facts are tricky. A fact is itself is not conclusive.
Two people hearing the same fact can have legitimately different reactions to it, e.g. whether a Supreme Court decision is valid or outrageous.
There’s plenty of room for commentary and editorializing but to me, it’s only valuable if it is comes from reason. If it reflects looking at a story from every angle and perspective, so that 100% of a situation, event, statement, or .