Let's have a Free for all post. Jeralyn is ticked off, because a judge punishing a reporter who broke the law wants her to do a public interest story as penance. Is this wrong? A bad idea? Why, or why not? Lambert reminds us that B and C (blog) listers aren't really "journalists." Is that a good thing, in light of this case? Meanwhile, journalism is becoming more and more akin to state sanctioned observation and data mining. Again- we want to protect these people?

We spend a lot of time, way too much in fact, bitching about the media. What are your ideas for reform? Can it be done? How can we preseve and protect the First Amendment? You may think this a silly post, but the bottom line is that when a nation reaches social and economic crises, these are questions that suddenly become more "relevant" and "important." It's happened before. In a New Age of communications technology, well, new things can happen. Let me show you an example of someone who doesn't get it. Why does he matter?

Because he's a heavy hitter with Ari Fleischer's new 200$ million effort to PR our way to war with Iran. 200M of your tax dollars, I'll remind you. Read how this multimillion dollar executive thinks of "communication," and tell me we're not due for some radical change once people like that are dead. Which is not to wish or plan for that demise, but merely to point out that our "leadership" is still very much stuck in thinking that hasn't been effective for several decades now.

Just to be silly- I used to say "turn it off." What I think I need to start saying is, "realize that a lot of people younger than you have not only turned it off, but have at the same time activated about +3 different and simutaneously running channels of multidimensional input. How does top down, one way, White Man rhetoric function in this new reality?

Not very well, in the scheme of things.