sashimi:3Boys:There is an important place for good, robust journalism. Try picking up a copy of the Economist and reading it front to back. I did it when I was 14 years old, and have not stopped for over 20 years. Good, sound reporting and editing, they are not always right, but they always think about what they write, and with rigor.How many of the web-feeds can replicate the balance and quality of the analyses that the Economist can put forth? In my experience, very very few. Time is precious, I want quality, not quantity.Ironically, the ability to be selective about what you read may actually narrow one's point of view. Given a choice, folk tend to only gravitate to the things they like, opinions that match their own. If you only choose to read what interests you, how on earth can that broaden your view of the world?I don't trust the traditional media much, but I trust the new media far LESS!Sorry but I completely disagree with you. You are saying that every piece of writing on the web is \"unfiltered\", \"unauthorized\" or \"unofficial.\" That's what traditional media has been trying to persuade people to believe. I have come across more fine articles and perfectly reasoned, professionally written articles on all manner of subjects, published on professional websites, than I care to count. They are, as you say \"Good, sound reporting and editing, they are not always right, but they always think about what they write, and with rigor.\" Exactly that. You only have to locate the right sources. Just as you personally pick The Economist as your choice of good writing, I pick my sources. You misread me - this is not about selecting what fits my opinion, this is about selecting my choice of topics, interests and relevance. I never said anything about not reading widely and reading different opinions. If someone only reads what he agrees with, that is a problem in the person that nothing in journalism is going to help.I'm talking about the MEDIUM by which you process and receive news. I'm not talking about whether you should be reading A or B or C publication.In any case, the 2.0 paradigm IS EXACTLY about different people with different opinions. It is EXACTLY about throwing away 1.0 attitudes where you are forced to listen to ONE authority on information. It is EXACTLY about the fact that Web 2.0 allows you to even challenge, comment upon and question writers and journalists that makes it even MORE reliable.Leveraging a medium where I can choose multiple sources has made a vast difference. my perspectives and horizons have been expanded by exposure to what people across the entire globe opine about. When the newspapers write about one piece of news, I have already read a dozen different takes on it on the web. \"New Media\" is not new anymore - it is 8+ years in the net, mature and already moving on to the next step while traditionalists continue hiding in their caves.. I mention this because traditional media like to position \"new media\" as something unestablished = unreliable. Good journalism exists plentifully on the web. Of course if I find that a certain source has poor writing, I ignore it. It's exactly the same as your own filtering of magazines. You and I are after the same thing: good journalism, all I am trying to say that if you leverage web 2.0 instead of paper, you gain even more possibilities, opinions and perspectives. 1.0 journalism is outdated journalism. On a printed paper, you can never discuss with the author. It is the same when a reader thinks the whole world can be encapsulated in one newspaper. And that's exactly the problem, because people start to believe that everything in that one newspaper must be the only truth.And THAT is exactly the problem here. The salesgirl had NO way of challenging the journalist, or defending herself. People read the report and accept that ONE writer's biased reporting as the \"truth\". Lastly, I was targeting the general media, as in broadsheets, not \"higher\" publications like The Economist. And btw, particiapte online and you can comment on your own favourite articles with people all over the web, See for yourself. http://www.economist.com/node/15108690/commentsMuch clearer sashimi, and you are right that we are more similar than different in our thinking. I find good quality stuff very difficult to come by on the internet still, though.Cheers
