When more information is potentially available than can be paid attention to, comprehended and placed in context by someone getting the information, you have a FILTERING problem.

When there are more (highly) inaccurate information sources, and they are more readily available, you have a SIGNAL/NOISE problem.

When the information is a congerie, and other information that would fill the gaps between unconnected nodes of information is missing, as is a structural model to give the information coherence, you have a CONTEXT problem.

When information that is trivial is readily available, but not information that can empower the audience and help them solve problems, you have a RELEVANCE problem.

When information is easily concealed because of social, economic, political or military and police power, you have an OPENNESS problem.

When the mechanisms and laws for imparting public information aren’t followed, you have an ACCESS problem.

When the information sources that use public resources take advantage of them without repaying that advantage, privileging themselves at the expense of the public and other information sources, you have a PUBLIC INTEREST problem.

Currently, many or most societies have ALL of these problems. A balanced society would depend on journalism to ameliorate any or all of them.

Again, none of these are a problem for a corporate culture that doesn’t have the well-being of any particular society or the world at large as a goal.

Wishful thinking is very dangerous. Neither God nor the Market care at all whether we humans have good or bad information sources as an aggregate. Indeed, the competitive advantage powerful people have in this situation would move the market in the direction of greater informational inequality.

On the other hand investigative journalism is hard. It requires talented reporters, editors and producers. Problem is the media companies with the deepest news staffs have shown a great reluctance to investigate stories that might contradict their political bias. Thus we are left with the National Enquirer being more esteemed than the New York Times at uncovering scandals involving Democrats such as John Edwards.

The news is always biased. It not only reflects the perspective of those who write the news but the prejudice of those who decide what aspects of a story to report. As such it behooves one seeking understanding to consult a diversity of media sources. Anything less and one is likely to be ill informed and surprised by the turn of events as the truth comes out.

What do you do with “Something is either accurate or it isn’t. It can’t be MORE accurate.”

I think even the Sumerians knew better. That’s not figuratively but literally caveman logic.

“We’re all guilty to a degree. There is no unbiased “news” anymore. Just a world of subjective opinion-news hybrids to wade through.

I think this is very true, but I don’t think it’s necessarily an evil thing. If we can teach people to think criticially and not just lap up whatever agrees with their narrative while automatically hurling daggers at those which do not, I think we can get somewhere. As it is, though, real critical analysis of the “news” these days doesn’t make it very far past a person’s own mental spam filter. Not good.