|
...I'll reply online.
For one reason, because while you get to decide what you write and where you write it, you don't get to decide what I write or where I write it. That's just how the universe works. Sorry to disillusion you.
For another reason, because you didn't offer to summarize the responses. You just want to read them. No guarantee that you'll ever let the participants know what the responses indicated, let alone that you'll report the conclusion honestly.
The most important reason is that your attitude, since you made no promise to summarize, let alone summarize honestly, mirrors that of much of the mainstream media - they let us know what they want us to know. The virtue of this means of communication is that we all get to have a say, and can learn from what others say - if we aren't fooled into wasting time responding into a black hole.
For all I know you're one of the most respected posters on this board and made your suggestion with the best of intentions. If so, you phrased this particular post badly.
I don't consider myself responsible for failings in the mainstream media, nor do I consider that I comprise it. I don't write the articles. I don't dictate editorial policy. I don't own shares in it. I have absolutely no control over the mainstream media except in one respect: whether or not I consume it. If I regularly consumed biased crap like Morloch newspapers or Fox News, thereby increasing their audience, thereby increasing their advertising revenue, thereby keeping them in business, I'd consider that I was part of the problem.
Others in society who lap up Fox News are indeed part of the problem. If they weren't such avid consumers of crap and instead sought out quality reporting then the likes of Fox would switch to honest reporting or go under.
So if by "we" you meant society as a whole, the answer is yes. If by "we" you meant the perceptive readers of this board, the answer is no.
|