>the nature of the beast. If you're automatically picking up stories and
>spewing them back out, you're going to pick up a lot of shit along with
>it.
>This is one of the main reasons I don't really trust must of what I read,
>and nothing that I see on TV, when I bother to watch. I try to hit primary
>sources only, or at least, get closer to primary sources.
>There is no end to the nonsense out there. I thought it was bad 20 years
>ago. Frankly I couldn't have predicted how fucked this sort of thing was
>going to get.

Myself, I'm MUCH happier with the way "the news" is today (with competition by the Internet, etc) than 20 years ago.  I remember well how "the news media" misled the public with the Randy Weaver case, Waco, etc.  "The news media" wouldn't touch discussions about complaints by various women about Bill Clinton, UNTIL one of them filed a lawsuit in about 1996.  The next day, as if on cue, suddenly all the media began to talk about that case, as if they had suddenly become aware of what was going on...when everyone knew that they must have been already quite aware.

Sure, some of today's 'information' is 'the chaff', rather than 'the wheat', but I'd rather have the opportunity to sift through ALL of the news, rather than let the MSM (mainstream media)  decide what little to show to us.

                Jim Bell