More generalizations without specifics. I know you have a point of view, and I know that your explanations sound logical to you, but despite the cost of print media, they're still out there. I don't know what you mean when you say security is too tight. Too tight to check facts? Too tight for what, please? There are still one or two folks who'll pay to buy Playboy and Cosmo and even The New Yorker and Poetry Magazine. They pay to buy The Atlantic, despite it's somewhat more conservative bias these days, and time and Newsweek are still in print. Some of the larger magazines have cropped up on line, these days, like Slate. They're still supposed to check sources and tell the truth, unlike Fox, which has made a point of taking an legal exemption on that one. They don't want anybody suing them for lying any more. They've made it clear that they feel no obligation to tell the truth, only to comply with editorial policy.
The news that people rant upon is, near as I can tell, fairly frequently a product of the right wing press. Much of that being a product of Fox, any attempt to identify that with the truth is not something that Fox regards as a legal obligation. They have legal judgements to prove this. No other new organization to my knowledge has ever gone to court to assert their right to lie during a news program and not be held responsible for that fact. I notice that this is not something that Fox actually advertises in their literature or on air, which surprises me. They did after all have to pay good money in legal fees to get the judgement in their favor saying exactly that hammered out in court. You'd think they brag about how they've become the news leader for the conservative forces in this country and how the conservative forces in the country proudly put their faith in this organization.
The rest of us idiots seem to want to settle for the truth. How foolish we are, hey!
Obviously as wish to hear and be informed of what the truth may be, and the upset at being lied to and deceived is something that folks on the right are used to and actually seem to enjoy. They stand up regularly for their network of choice and for other "news" sources that echo the same "facts" the Fox broadcasts. The feel that being lied to is worth of being upset, and the reaction at being treated this shabbily is called by those on the right as "rants." You certainly call these sort of things rants, as in:
the news magazines don't report the news anymore: they rant on it, from a decidedly leftist point of view. I couldn't get thru one issue of Newsweek during the Bush administration. So I stopped reading it, and apparently millions of others did, too.
Apparently being lied to by your news sources was fine with you, and was not worth ranting about. If I find The New York Times has lied to me or misinformed me, I expect them to say so and try to do something about it. Oddly enough, I find they actually do from time to time. They seem to deserve to be the paper of record in the country because they actually tend to say when they notice they've made a mistake. This is more than I can say for many of the efforts at reportage that the Fox Folk have attempted.
Perhaps you are aware of an incidence when they stated flat out that Iraq was not responsible for the 9/11 Bombings in New York. If they have, I remain sadly unaware of any such retraction. If they have retracted their statements that Iraq was involved with Al Qaeda and was giving aid and comfort to those forces before our invasion, I'd be happy to see those retractions pointed out to me. The involvement wasn't until much later and hadn't anything to do with Saddam Hussein; it came as a reaction to our invasion of Iraq and still remains relatively small compared to the local resistance and to the supporting Shi'ia resistance responding to our actual invasion. If Fox has said anything, I haven't heard it, and they have certainly permitted and encouraged the majority of their listeners to hold a false and misleading belief.
You stopped listening to reports of information that didn't agree with your pre-held beliefs, Threadbear. The New York Times for a while held beliefs and reported beliefs that were very close to the ones that you held then and seem to hold today. Even at that time, you seemed to feel that The Times was a Leftist Organization, despite the fact that its loyalty was to the facts that it was getting and as it understood them, and that the facts at that time agreed with you.
This suggests that you were not paying attention to the facts that were being reported, but to the politics of the matter.
I would suggest that one judges reality on the basis of reality and not on the basis of politics.
When the facts that The Times Got changed, and got more in depth confirmation from more sources, they changed their reportage and they apologized. This is the appropriate tack to take.
The Times, after all, has never tried to say that it should not be responsible for reporting the best understanding of truth that it had.
Sorry I wasn't able to keep it short.