There is a difference between a free press and a worthless press. Reporting the news is a sacred trust to inform the public of the facts. Our Founders wrote persuasive essays arguing the merits of Independence from England, but those essays would have fallen on deaf ears without the public understanding the facts surrounding the issues of the time.

We had an interesting conversation at TPP the other day. Comparisons were made between the crowds at the Glenn Beck rally on 8/28, and the 10/2 rally sponsored by various liberal causes. While no "official" crowd estimate was released, they were given equivalent weight in the mainstream media. The Washington Post reported the Beck crowd at about 82,000 and the 10/2 rally at "tens of thousands", but "less than the Beck rally".

In the aftermath, aerial photos of the two rallies appeared side by side online at several news sources. Again there were no official estimates, but just in trusting one's eyes the 10/2 rally seemed to have somewhere between 10 to 20% of the attendance of the Beck rally. After thinking out loud about this observation, the general reaction in the room was "Why should I care?"

There was no ready answer for this question. A couple of rallies, regardless of what they represent, would not normally draw our attention. TPP is a firm supporter of free speech, especially with regard to political questions. We support any group or individual's right to speak out in the public square and to be heard. We also support the right of those being addressed to agree with or dismiss the speaker as they choose. Freedom of political discourse is one of the founding tenets of the United States.

After giving the matter more thought, the problem became apparent. The problem was not with Mr. Beck, or with the various groups organizing the 10/2 rally. They were both exercising their First Amendment rights. The problem was with the blatant bias and disregard for reporting facts by the mainstream media. There was little information in the form of facts available on either rally.

Dragnet's Detective Joe Friday had it right when he demanded "Just the facts, ma'am". Coverage of both events was slanted and hyped in the elusive manner that only a 24 hour news network can provide. With rare exception, the Beck rally was minimized in size and importance. The 10/2 rally was inflated in the same way.

The Beck rally was reported to be consisting of consisting of "right wing kooks", bent on violence and desecration. None occurred, no arrests were made, and in fact the crowd policed their own trash and left the mall spotless. Nearly all reports carried the image of a rally supporter in some sort of costume who was then treated with derision on CNN and MSNBC. FOX News was noticeable in it's absence of coverage.

Coincidentally, at the 10/2 rally, the banners and literature available from the Socialist Party and Communist Party USA were conspicuously absent in both print and television coverage. There were literally tons of litter left behind, including free American flags distributed to the gathering being among the few items actually getting into the trash cans provided by the Park Service.

In addition to fudged counts on the crowds, and the misrepresentations attributed to them, actual facts and journalism were scarce. Instead, opinion was presented as fact. It is not our intention to carry water for Beck, or to trash the motives of the 10/2 rally. It is only our purpose to point out that without a full reporting of facts, opinion is meaningless. Punditry is defined as analysis of the facts. It does not replace facts. It is supposed to be the function of journalism to accurately report the facts, not to dress them up in the prejudices of the author, editor or talking head.

Basic journalism answers 5 questions - Who? What? Where? When? and How? Answering these questions constitutes reporting news. Mainstream media, and new media failed in large degree on this task.The question of "Why?" is sometimes addressed in reporting, but is more often than not relegated to the Editorial page. Any average reporter knows to verify facts and to understand the motives of his sources. Good reporters make clear the line between the facts that they have collected and their interpretation of those facts.

This was tabloid journalism - cheap sensationalism tarting up actual news for ratings, profit or favor. It is one of the lowest forms of prostitution. Tabloid journalism is nothing new. In the lead up to the Spanish American war, W.R. Hearst proudly proclaimed to staff artist Frederic Remington "You furnish the pictures, and I'll furnish the war". Remington had reported that there would be no war in Cuba (then owned by Spain) in 1897. There was. Through a campaign of rubbish journalism, Hearst almost single-handedly created an American desire for the war. That's marketing.

What is new is that tabloid journalism has taken over - there is no trusted mainstream media source for factual news anymore. It's all for ratings and market share. We are witness to that fact every time Lindsay Lohan uses up front page column space that should be used to report on events of significance. Nero's bread and circuses are being visited upon us daily - just enough comfort and distraction to keep us from caring. Such a flood of information that we are too overwhelmed to question it much.

New media has tried to fill this gap, but it is compromised as well. Large outlets (Huffington Post, Daily Kos, The Drudge Report) have sold out journalistic integrity for ideology, which goes to profitability. Of the rest, it is hard to determine if you are tapping into true journalism or just a nutjob with a laptop. In all cases let the buyer beware.

Common Sense Dictates

We are in an information age Tower of Babel with infinite voices expressing infinite opinions. These opinions are based on shadings of fact not always readily verifiable. What was once trusted, if biased, was the mainstream media. There was no denying the liberal slant of the NY Times, or the conservative slant to the Wall Street Journal. Still the rules of journalism were followed, and facts were facts. It is what separated the Washington Post from the National Enquirer. Now we have a ministry of propaganda for the left and for the right. Somehow the National Enquirer has become better at breaking news than the Washington Post.

Some of this comes from the wild west atmosphere as the media morphs into it's next generation. This same thing happened with the introduction of photographs, radio and television. What is different this time is that formerly trusted media sources have sold out journalistic standards for the sake of profits.This may speak to the vertical structuring of news sources and the conflict of interest arising from corporate control of where we obtain our information. The bottom line is now the most important line. We have seen how well that is working for them. Just ask iconic Newsweek magazine, which was sold last month for a dollar - not a dollar a share, a dollar for the whole operation. Seriously. Google it.

Now they are no longer trusted, and fighting for their very survival. Print media is no longer profitable, and News networks are a laughingstock. The fact that Jon Stewart of "The Daily Show" is considered a more trusted source for news than say, Rick Sanchez (we had to go there) speaks volumes as to how far true journalism has fallen.

Thomas Jefferson was known to have supported the need for a free press more vigorously than the need for a government. There was tabloid journalism back then - Jefferson was often the focus of it. Then, as in every change in how we receive our information, it is verifiable fact-based reporting that becomes trusted.

The question today is who do you trust, and why do you trust them? Trusting them because they validate your own opinions is lazy and dangerous - it is the home of the mental midget. Swallowing the ocean of information is not practical either - no one has the time.

Trust may not be an option anymore. In a September 2010 interview Newt Gingrich was asked "Why should we trust the Republicans?" His answer was short and to the point. He said "I don't think they should trust them (the Republicans), I think they should loan them power, watch them carefully, keep on them every week, and make sure they keep their word."

That seems to be sound advice with how we gather our information, and form our opinions. Go to your news sources, find a story that is important to you - verify that the facts of the story check out. If this happens time and again, it is a trustworthy source. It is a good place to hone your opinions. If not, it's a nutjob with a laptop, or a newspaper.

Ronald Reagan said of the Soviet Union "Trust, but verify". In this new age of limitless information perhaps it should be "Verify, then trust", or as Mr. Gingrich says, verify and keep verifying. Jefferson said that "An informed citizenry is the bulwark of a democracy". We find that to be Common Sense.

RLB