In other words, it was not as advertised – not even close. It was instead the antithesis of what was advertised, and it made the process worse, not better. It will do so again in 2008.

The collapse of the legacy press, which you comment on, only makes things worse.

Intrigued by the excerpt from Sam’s Editor & Publisher piece, I followed the link and read the whole article.

The right can’t be expected to read or listen to the left. When I personally read or listen to the right, I gag.

To me, the essential problem is that sources that were once authoritative, such as the New York Times and Washington Post have abdicated any pretence to “objectivity” in favor of “balance.”

The Times, for example, will run slanted articles by their top writers like Judith Miller and Michael Gordon, paving the way for war. Their editorial page, on the other hand, usually takes a traditional liberal stance.

The Washington Post’s journalism still sets standards, but their editorials are often hard right.

The net effect is to make the reader’s head spin. We know that the oped pages is supposed to refect a diversity of opinion, but other than that. . . where are these papers coming from? Why are their articles at odds with their editorials?

Confused, we fall back on sources that confirm our biases.

The curriculum that this series is leading toward is shaped around the practice of reporting and editorializing, but at its core it addresses more universal principles that any good ed program should cover – how to find data, how to parse good from bad, how to think critically, how to act ethically, etc.

So yeah. Now if we only knew any professors….

Hell, this shouldn’t be limited to J-schools. We need a discipline that explores these new forms of public rhetoric and gives every undergraduate at least one course in critical analysis of the information flowing all around them….