Since a lot of people get their news via social networking now....are social networks becoming more like news networks or vise versa? I'm much inclined to think the latter.
Both are so inclined to charisma and the best way of stating an idea that neither the facts nor central ideas stand much chance.
I'm trying to imagine Fred Friendly, Edward R. Murrow, Chet Huntley, David Brinkley, or Walter Cronkite tweeting or FB'ing and I got nothing.
And yet those names mattered, not for being charismatic, handsome or clever, but for knowing that news was far more important than they were, and delivering it.
I know that those are just names to a lot of people now, but once, the news mattered - and that's not a case of rose-colored glasses or get off of my lawn.
It's all social media now, even if it calls itself news.
Nearly a billion hits for googling Malaysia air news - and nearly all of it repeating the last idiot in the quest to satisfy and feed the demand of entitlement for instant gratification.
It's no longer about information. It's about entitlement.
A picture of a camping trip gone wrong as a substitute for reporting the weather.
During the Cold War, one scientist made a poignant observation - there is no democracy in physics - saying iow, we can't vote to see how atomic fusion works.
And yet this tragedy shows clearly that a great many people want to vote on the truth as if that would make it so.