NP- David Brooks, Joe Klein, and the Courtier Press

[rich]

but I suspect many people only get their news via these analysis
shows, i.e. they rely on others to inform them about issues (I don't
denigrate these shows by the way, Stewart is a funny guy and though I
dont watch her show, Rachel Maddow seems very reasonable in what she
says from what I've seen of it)

TV is just not the proper medium to discus complicated issues. Aaron
Sorkin's new show Newsnight is comical in its illusory depiction of
news as it is currently made on TV. Like lots of things about America
it pines for the good old days which never really existed in the first
place.

I won't even mention Fox. it doesn't have balls only Goebbels (sorry
bad Pynchonian pun there)

i really disagree that being well-informed is a luxury many cant afford.

On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 2:41 PM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
> Granted, except for the false equivalency between major networks and
> Maddow/Stewart.  Maddow/Stewart aren't "news."  One is
> commentary/analysis and the other is comedy/analysis.  Both comment
> on, not report.
>
> Actually, we could use a lot more analysis on the networks, instead of
> the he-said/she-said, no fact-checking false equivalency that so
> prevails today.  But that would take balls, and only Fox (not that
> they fact-check, but they do pretend to) has a pair, it seems.
>
> Neither of the 3 sides is pure, but their respective levels of deceit
> aren't even in the same universe.
>
> David Morris
>
> PS.  Most people don't have the luxury to dig deeper than TV for news,
> just trying to survive.  Being well-informed is a (painful) luxury.
>
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 1:29 PM, rich <richard.romeo at gmail.com> wrote:
>> anyone who gets most of their news from television is, well... living in aaron sorkin land and boy is that a dangerous place to be same goes for the rachel maddows and jon stewarts.