Information Filters

   In this Information Age, more people have more access to more information from more sources in more detail than ever before. Yet when it comes to politics and government, it seems less is accomplished.
   Partisan groups don't talk to each other, so there is no possibility of compromise. But the importance of talking to opponents to settle on a compromise was one of the guiding principles to the founders of the American governmental system.
   Recently, however, that has been abandoned, and partly enabled by the many news media outlets that serve their own partisan audiences. Gone are the days when journalists served as filters, selecting the most important items and exercising editorial discretion as to what best served the public interest.
   Watching cable TV information operations that best reflect an individual's closely held opinions does not allow for exposure to opposing views, much less contribute to a compromise.
   There are, indeed, news programs that strive to be neutral, objective and reasonably complete in their presentation of various sorts of information, but far too many citizens choose to watch entertainment or gossip programs rather than serious news outlets, much less do they read newspapers.
   For one thing, reading requires work, an active role by individuals. Watching television is easy and requires no effort. Moreover, broadcast news programs are by nature brief and incomplete, with no time available for in-depth analysis of issues of great public concern.
   A 30-minute program, for example, has perhaps 19 minutes available for news content. The rest of the half-hour is taken up by commercials and promotions, as well as introductory and closing material.
   If a news presenter speaks at the rate of about 100 words per minute, that means less than 2,000 words available to pack in and disseminate all the news and information about all the important issues of the day. That's the equivalent of less than half a page of a standard size newspaper. -- without pictures.
   In addition, setting up a TV story, with video and sound of the subject, is expensive, requiring a camera operator, sound recorder, producer and presenter as well as the cost of transportation and satellite equipment to transmit the video back to the TV newsroom, where other personnel are needed to edit, set up and send the story to the engineers who actually broadcast the material.
   A print reporter, on the other hand, needs only a notebook and pencil  to gather the material at the scene, plus access to a telephone to gather more information and call in the story to the newsroom.
   Television may be more glamorous, but the skill set for reporters is the same: Ask pertinent questions, record the answers, and write the story.
   Fortunately, even as newspapers reduce their newsroom staff and trim their coverage of local and regional news, the reporters and editors can find other work with broadcast and online operations in the New Information Age.
   Lost in the shuffle, however, is coverage of local and regional news as national broadcast and cable TV operations dominate the journalistic scene.
   All is not yet lost, however. There are still many people who prefer the tactile appeal of print news sources, especially with their more complete coverage, and there are others who do not have, nor do they want, computers.
   There again, online sources are often not as complete as print sources. And more important, there is no filtering, so the reader has no way of knowing the competence and reputation of the source.
   It's time for journalism to reclaim its mission of being accurate, impartial and complete in its coverage of important events.
   This is especially true in this election year, when so much of what candidates and their supporters say is provably false, misleading, or even a blatant lie.