Are We Convinced? A Brazilian man is shot multiple times in the head. Karl Rove was hot,
now he's not. Are our memories this short?

Apparently, it's enough that atrocities happen, that governments
fumble. If we read about it, see it on television, we consider the
media to have done their job. Most consider the media to be a
balanced, neutral source of information, because 'that's their job.'

Is this all it takes to convince us? To give us the illusion that
wrongdoing is ousted, That we are in full possession of all the facts?

This seems most clear when I read an editorial in the Chicago
Tribune[1], saying that London's police, to combat terrorism, must
'make split-second decision as they follow shoot-to-kill orders.
Sometimes, they will be wrong.' Over and above the insanity of
British police shooting an innocent man in the head, already
loathsome, is the unbelievable support and apology for these actions
by a member of the media. Sometimes they will be wrong? No. It is the
public's right to have an unreasonable expectation of their police,
because though people do make mistakes, the police, the law, are
ostensibly there to correct those mistakes. And if the
police make mistakes? They should be corrected, on
an order of ten or so.

I realize that balanced, neutral reporting is an ideal, not a reality,
but something that deviates so far from that ideal is still
surprising. The short attention span that the Western World has been
diagnosed with, has now become so clearly symptomized in the constant
hunt for the 'next big story,' and any story only lasts because
nothing bigger or more surprising has trumped it. Rather, Rove should
not be able to sit in any restaurant, anywhere in the world, without a
guy carrying a camera and a notepad at all times. We should not be
satisfied with statements from the British police or government.

In that ideal world, the media would hound those who need hounding,
until we know what happened, and how to keep it from happening again.

I'm not sure if I even want to start speculating about how often the
media will have its own political leanings. Suffice it to say, if even
what you read and see has been split down the line, where do you start
looking for truth? Maybe down in the gutters of opinion columns, and
news blogs, too off-the-cuff or amateur to worry about pissing off a
corporation or government contract.

Things go right back to the beginning, don't they? When word-of-mouth
was the original news distributor, and you either agreed with what you
heard, or you didn't. Or you keep asking questions.

Have I convinced you?

[1] http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0507260246jul26,0,4265376.story?coll=chi-newsopinion-hed  ¶ 9:38 AM