But he thinks he failed. So now if it were criminal, he could be at least be charged with attempted misinformation. How the people currently in power in this country aren’t triggering a mass revolt with the obviousness of their manipulations of the public, is baffling me.

John Stewart is a comedian. Just ask him. In fact he looks down on people that see him as a journalist, and watch his show for the news. Of course he’s almost entirely wrong about all of that. He is a comedian, and a journalist.

On the flip side, he is tied as the Most Admired Journalist by Americans under 30, along with Bill O’Reilly. That's mind boggling to me. On one hand you have someone who tries to point out the contradictory things that people say and do in politics. And on the other hand, you have someone who tries to convince the viewers of their personal political viewpoint.

Those who think John is also a propagandist, only making fun of the republicans, should see his piece on Obama’s race speech. He tore through it like it was a paper bag filled with water.

So I would say The Daily Show is nearly as good a news program as some, and much better than others.

Why are they attacking a candidate with something stupid said by someone he knows. Everyone has people with crazy or stupid ideas in their corner. This one is just as unimportant as all the others. And 2/3rds of the public agrees that it's pointless.

So why the hell are people still watching this shit. Simple answer, because there is nothing better on. We are all idiots.

This guy says it better.

Right now there seems to be a sudden growth of stories about how the internet is killing traditional newspapers. It's true. In fact it is true of all media. The internet has gifted every individual with the ability to mass distribute ideas, information, and art... by themselves.

A paper is no longer needed for people to get news. It's expensive to produce. And today, growing ever more expensive to deliver. But people still want news. Possibly more now, than ever before. So unsurprisingly people turn away from the paper, to the internet instead. Why pay for paper delivery when you already pay for internet delivery. They both provide news. And then the internet has so much more on top of that.

But the internet isn't without problems. When everybody has an equal voice, rumor and speculation can sound just as credible as actual knowledge and incite. In fact, that is largely what news on the net is right now. There are a relative few number of sources doing actual research and reporting. The other 90+% is all people rehashing the original research into something that fits their opinion, or even worse, something more sensational to drive page views.

So good news is still very much needed. And the paper of newspapers is too expensive to survive. The solution seems simple. Newspapers need to think of themselves as news reporting services. A service that finds and generates real trustworthy information, and distributes it through any form people desire. Whether it's paper, online, or even audio. Yes even audio! I would love it if somebody would read me the days top stories during my commute, the same as a Podcast, or audio book.

But as with most people who have been doing something a certain way for a long time, they have difficulty seeing any other possibilities. But as so much is susceptible to evolution, so is this. If the traditional news organizations don't figure it out, somebody else will. Even though general news on the net isn't as good as it could be, it will eventually mature, and I have no doubt that it will be even better than the news papers it replaced.

For examples of online news done right, look at Ars Technica and Tech Dirt. You can think of them as the NY Times and NY Daily News respectively. They are both technology focused, but everything outside of the news content, is right on target. They should be seen as an example for traditional news organizations to strive for.

Alright so Fox is probably one of my least favorite television networks on the planet. They are just a slightly more Orwellian than the rest. Just like the rest they fight tooth and nail to clamp down on any copying of their content for any reason. Suing for thousands of dollars per infringement. Well How much money do you think this lady will get for Fox’s alteration and use of a photo she took of her dog. I’m betting way less than Fox tries to get from people, but at the same time far more than they want to give.

My single hope is that she sues for not only a little pocket money, and legal fees, but also a 5 minuet story that airs on Fox news every hour during prime time for a week. That would be what I would want to settle out of court.