Not exactly what David Brooks said, but close. Another edition of Shields and brooks that gets to the heart of what really counts in the bizarre and sometimes very off-base stories that the media chooses to cover.
Personally, I prefer the days before trending "Twits" determined a news organization's focus and people like Ben Bradlee insisted on quality journalism, even if it took awhile.
Although Shields and Brooks don't mention it, I have a real problem when "Twit readers" demand that Brian Williams, the 'talking head' that reads/introduces the 22 minutes of news every night be 'credible', far beyond any of the people (mostly anonymous) whose barely literate Twits they eagerly consume around the clock.
Anyway, back to another excellent discussion between Shields and Brooks:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Feel free to comment, but keep it on topic, factual, and please show some thought. Anything else will be deleted.
Anonymous comments are also deleted, unread unless you notify me in advance of your pseudonym and give me verifiable contact information.