David: I don't know your friend, and therefore can't comment on his/her foibles. However, I believe that in your relatively balanced review of the approach reporters take to interviewing sources, you left out the one item that represents the 1,000 lb. pink elephant in the corner.

I'm referring, of course, to the fact that the newspapers and networks which employ most reporters these days are "big businesses", and therefore to them ratings points and subscription numbers are the only criterion for publishing or not publishing a story, as well as for determining the "slant" of said stories. In my experience this rarely bodes well for a free and open press.

My perspective on reporters these days is similar to my perspective on politicians. When they got into this racket it was for all the right reasons: to make a difference, to expose corruption, to make the world a more honourable (or at least honest) place. Unfortunately, the "system" in which both of those groups of professionals have to work forces them to make the kinds of trade-offs that ultimately saps their ability to do what they took this job for in the first place. In terms of reporters that seems to create the types your friend (and many other people) are so cynical about.

Where politicans are concerned, I've thrown up my hands in despair.

I see a sliver of hope for reporters, but only if they write for a small privately owned paper, or on the internet, where no old white guy in a suit who's more worried about his quarterly dividends than the freedom and responsibility of the press gets to tell said reporters what to write and how.

Kristen, agreed that corporate ownership has desperately messed up the press. It has virtually eliminated whole kinds of stories (like, "investigative" ones) and it has encouraged other kinds (like, stories about pretty girls who are missing). The corporate press is more cautious than it ought to be, and more shallow.

But we're not quite to EVIL yet. To say corporate ownership of the media means people shouldn't talk to reporters or read any corporate-owned newspapers or watch any corporate-owned TV: This seems a bit over the top.

First off I never used the word "evil" and I also didn't (at least it wasn't my intent to) suggest that people shouldn't talk to reporters. Despite how screwed up this system has become, it is the system we have, and so I don't believe it is an option, at least not a viable option, to simply refuse to talk.

That said, I must confess that I frankly would support more people boycotting the "big" news organizations completely, and throwing their support (and their dollars) behind the development of some kind of truly independent press organization.

The most insidious aspect of the "corporate" news organizations to me, is that most people who consume it have absolutely no clue whatsoever, that the "news" they watch on Fox or CNN is driven as much by the decisions of bean counters as it is by legitimate news gathering techniques, and that it is often very one-dimensional as opposed to "neutral" which is what most people like to think "news" is.

People think therefore, that they know what is going on in the world by watching the news at 6 p.m, when the actual fact is that to have a truly well-rounded perspective on almost any issue, you need to access at least three different news sources for each issue under discussion. How many people do YOU know who actually do that on a daily basis, between jobs, families and other obligations.

This is why so many people don't understand the REAL repercussions likely to result from things like, you know, the government starting a war in a foreign country for no legitimate reason?

Ok, I'm going to stop. See, here's me getting down off my soapbox.

Legitimate news-gathering techniques? What are those?

Anyone remember the TV show Lou Grant? I loved that program.

You've got spunk, Murray. I hate spunk.

Ron - wasn't that quote actually from the Mary Tyler Moore show? I mean, it was the character of Lou Grant who said it, so I'm probably just whining over semantics here, but, well, it's the proof-reader in me - I can't help myself.

No, Kristen; technically speaking, it's the fact-checker in you.

Yes, Lou told Mary she had spunk. She looked pleased with herself, at which point he enlightened her while grouching off.

We stumbled across "The Insider" on some movie channel last night and I was spellbound: "60 Minutes" (Pacino) and a whistleblower (Crowe) take on Big Tobacco and win. I know it's been movie-cized and it's 9 years old, but still, there ARE reporters and publications and shows out there who are greedy for only one thing: the truth.

I always told my boss (head of a state agency) that reporters aren't our friends but they aren't our enemy, either, and that if we're square with them, they'll be square with us, usually (there are no guarantees in life). The minute you get subtle or evasive, you're toast--SO DON'T DO THAT, because they're better at what they do than you are at covering up.

(Oooh, Jane, have you seen the new George Carlin HBO show? "It's all bullshit, folks. And it's bad for ya." Not his best, but it's up your personal message alley, and you ought to see it.)

It's up my WHAT??? :-)

Yes, I was fully aware that the reference I made was to the Lou Grant character in an episode of the MTM show and not from Lou Grant the series. I don't think fact-checking or proofreading should apply to mindless free association in a blog comment. But I need to remind myself that this is a forum for curmudgeons, cranks and complainers, of which I am a proud and active member.

Sorry, Jane. I meant your "message driver." My bad. Just see it!

Ron - Point taken.

Kristen - thanks. And, as my teenage daughter says, often, after she has said something that might be interpreted as unjustly critical, "No fence."