Showing posts with label Brainwashing. Show all posts

Monday, November 27, 2006

Criticism Of Religion Reflected In Ignorance

RELIGION / HARSH CRITICISM OF ORGANIZED RELIGION REFLECTS CULTURAL AMNESIA, IGNORANCE, INDIFFERENCE AND INTOLERANCE OF WHAT CONSTITUTED RELIGION FROM ITS BEGINNING

ZENIT
The World Seen from Rome

- Daily Dispatch -

Smiley Flag Waver "In nearly all prosperous liberal democracies, atheism is strong."

"Apart from the crass vulgarity of some student speakers, what shocked me most was the apparent ignorance of many speakers about what constituted religion in general and Catholicism and Christianity in particular."

So many things that are taken for granted today -- education, hospitals, the very notion of a person, the distinction between sacred and secular -- owe their origin to Christian inspiration. "Cultural amnesia is a dangerous condition for any society."

"Tolerance, however, must never be confused with indifferentism, for any form of indifference is radically opposed to the deep Christian concern for man and for his salvation." A concern that means the Church will not allow itself to be intimidated by those who wish it to remain silent.

Religion In The Cross Hairs

Secular World Attacks Organized Belief

~ By Father John Flynn

LONDON, NOV. 26, 2006 (Zenit.org) - Organized religion is coming in for harsh criticism in many parts. English singer Elton John said religion turns people into "hateful lemmings." He also accused it of lacking compassion. His comments came in an interview with the Observer newspaper's Music Monthly Magazine, published Nov. 12.

The aging pop star's criticisms were sparked off by the matter of how religion deals with homosexuality. "I think religion has always tried to turn hatred towards gay people," he said.

He is far from being alone in this view. In the United States, talk-show host Rosie O'Donnell likened Christianity to radical Islam. Her attack, in a nationally broadcast program in October, was not well received, according to a Nov. 13 press release by the California-based Barna Group.

A nationwide survey by the Barna Group found that although few Americans would challenge O'Donnell's right to make such statements, just as few share her point of view.

Across the Pacific, Pamela Bone, writing in the Australian newspaper on Aug. 15, rejoiced over data which, she argued, showed that "in nearly all prosperous liberal democracies, atheism is strong."

Bone accused religion of being "directly responsible for countless world conflicts, resulting in the loss of millions of human lives." Religion is still a danger today, she contended: "The truth is that it is now too dangerous for religion to be given the special status it has always had."

Bone added: "The best hope for a less religious and thus safer world is for religion -- all religion -- to be open to rational and stringent examination and criticism, and yes, to ridicule."

Meanwhile, in Canada, author Christopher Hitchens recently explained why he "hates religion," reported the National Post on Nov. 18. Speaking at the University of Toronto, Hitchens declared he hates Islam because it exhibits a "horrible trio of self-hatred, self-righteousness and self-pity," while making a "cult of death, suicide and murder."

He also hates Judaism, because it leads to Christianity. His negative view of Christianity is well known, particularly after his infamous attacks on Mother Teresa of Calcutta in the 1990s.

In the midst of declaring his multiple hatreds, Hitchens declared: "I am absolutely convinced that the main source of hatred in the world is religion."

Anti-Religious Books

During the Toronto address Hitchens gave some details of his forthcoming book, "God Is Not Great." The book, he said, is "a general case against religion."

Anti-religious books are in fashion these days. American author Sam Harris has just published a brief (112-page) sequel to his 2004 book, "The End of Faith." At a recent presentation at the New York Public Library, Harris condemned the God of the Old Testament, in addition to the New Testament, "likening the story of Jesus to a fairy tale," the Washington Post reported Oct. 26.

For good measure Harris also attacked the Koran, calling it "a manifesto for religious divisiveness."

According to the Washington Post, "The End of Faith" has sold more than 270,000 copies. In that book, Harris described religion as "a desperate marriage of hope and ignorance." He also slammed religion for promoting intolerance. Nor was his argument limited to extremist groups. "One of the central themes of this book," Harris declared in the opening chapter, " … is that religious moderates are themselves the bearers of a terrible dogma."

In a curious use of religious terminology, Harris concludes the book by describing faith as "the devil's masterpiece." The book also appeals for a sustained campaign against religion, and faith in general: "We must find our way to a time when faith, without evidence, disgraces anyone who would claim it."

British author Richard Dawkins also recently published a book decrying religion, "The God Delusion." Dawkins is well known for his hostility to religion. "The celebrated atheist and high priest of popular science" is how a review of the book in the Observer newspaper on Oct. 29 described him.

Dawkins is not limiting himself to publishing. The Sunday Times on Nov. 19 reported that he plans to set up a charity that will subsidize the publication of educational materials for distribution in schools.

His organization, according to the article, will also attempt to divert donations from the hands of "missionaries" and church-based charities. His foundation, which is in the process of seeking registration in the United Kingdom and the United States, will have a database of charities free of "church contamination."

The Times article cited the concern of Anglican clergyman John Hall, dean of Westminster. Hall criticized the project as not being based on reasoned argument.

Dawkins and other critics of religion have often come under fire for their superficial view of religion. This was repeated recently by Verbite Father Vincent Twomey, a retired professor of moral theology at St. Patrick's College, Maynooth, Ireland. He took part recently in a debate at the College Historical Society in Trinity College Dublin, on the topic "That Religion Is a Block to Progress."

"Apart from the crass vulgarity of some student speakers, what shocked me most was the apparent ignorance of many speakers about what constituted religion in general and Catholicism and Christianity in particular," Father Twomey noted, writing in the Irish Times on Nov. 13.

So many things that are taken for granted today -- education, hospitals, the very notion of a person, the distinction between sacred and secular -- owe their origin to Christian inspiration. "Cultural amnesia is a dangerous condition for any society," he observed.

Bring Forth Treasure

While not referring to these recent attacks specifically, Benedict XVI recently addressed the issue of how religion is portrayed as a negative force. "So often the Church's countercultural witness is misunderstood as something backward and negative in today's society," he commented to visiting Irish bishops on Oct. 28.

What the Church needs to do in these circumstances, the Pope recommended, is to act like the wise householder who brings forth from his treasure "what is new and what is old" (Matthew 13:52). In this way the faithful will be able to discern what society offers them today. "Help them to recognize the inability of the secular, materialist culture to bring true satisfaction and joy," the Holy Father continued. "Be bold in speaking to them of the joy that comes from following Christ and living according to his commandments."

Moreover, even though the bishops need to warn against the evils around us, "we must correct the idea that Catholicism is merely ‘a collection of prohibitions,'" Benedict XVI said. In order to do that Catholic teaching must be formulated in such a way that it communicates "the liberating power of the Gospel."

The Gospel is good for society, the Pope argued in his Sept. 28 address to the new German ambassador to the Holy See. Commenting on the favorable reception by the German people to his recent pastoral visit, Benedict XVI noted: "Wherever society is growing and people are strengthened in good, thanks to the message of faith, this also benefits social coexistence, and the readiness of citizens to assume responsibility for the common good is reinforced."

This message is not imposed by the Church, and therefore faith exists in the context of tolerance. "Tolerance, however, must never be confused with indifferentism, for any form of indifference is radically opposed to the deep Christian concern for man and for his salvation," the Pontiff pointed out. A concern that means the Church will not allow itself to be intimidated by those who wish it to remain silent.

ZE06112623

ZENIT is an International News Agency.

SEND US YOUR NEWS:
Please send press releases, statements and other information to our international news desk at:
news@zenit.org.

Send A Link For This Article To A Friend

Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below

Tuesday, November 07, 2006

Liberal Influence Distorts Media Journalism

MEDIA / UNDER THE INFLUENCE: LIBERALISM DISTORTS MEDIA JOURNALISM, REPORTING

Alains Newsletter

Smiley Flag Waver

A GOP gaffe will be replayed ad nauseam on news broadcasts, news magazine programs, and comedy shows. Then, it may get a second round of play on liberal talk radio and ripped-from-the-headlines TV dramas.

But when a liberal makes a rhetorical blunder, he or she is excused because, after all, he or she really didn’t mean to say it. The guilty party is too erudite or too compassionate for the remark to be taken at face-value.

Under the Influence of Liberalism

~ Nathan Tabor
Friday 3 November 2006

I find it interesting that, in today’s maniacal media world, conservatives are taken to task for every syllable they utter, but liberals are given a pass.

Sen. John Kerry is the latest case in point. Kerry indicated this week that if you’re a student who does not study hard and do your homework, you will end up “stuck in Iraq.” It should be evident to every American that this is an insult to the fine men and women who have put their lives on the line to try to rebuild Iraq and keep us safe from Iraqi-sponsored terrorism.

But a number of journalistas are telling us that no, the Democrat from Massachusetts couldn’t possibly have meant what he said, given the fact that he himself is a veteran of war. No, we’re told, he just botched a joke. After all, Kerry is no David Letterman.

It seems to me that a more likely excuse is that he was speaking under the influence of liberalism.

I wonder where these apologists were when actor Mel Gibson, while drunk, blamed the Jewish people for the wars in the world. When the report of Gibson’s inebriated gaffe first emerged, television viewers were told that alcohol had enabled Gibson to reveal his true, disturbing feelings about people of Jewish descent. In other words, being drunk was no excuse. Gibson also apologized, but certain members of the media still wouldn’t let the matter rest. They suggested that his apology wasn’t good enough -- that he had to back up his words with concrete action.

What about Kerry? Is it enough for him to say he’s sorry? Or should he be made to take an active role in supporting the Iraq war effort -- something that I seriously doubt he would do. If Kerry isn’t required to make amends, doesn’t that mean that the media are engaging in a double-standard, lambasting conservatives for ill-chosen words, but quickly forgiving verbal mistakes from the liberal side of the political spectrum?

Yet another example from recent headlines is the Michael J. Fox-Rush Limbaugh fiasco. Rush said that Fox’s movements in a political ad indicated that he was either acting or off his meds for Parkinson’s disease. Fox said he was actually over-medicated; Rush admitted he was wrong. Yet, we see Rush’s imitation of Fox’s TV performance replayed on the tube over and over again. But Fox, whose liberal, pro-embryonic stem cell research stance is beloved by many major media, is not taken to task for the fact that he hasn’t even read the Missouri ballot issue he favors.

In the same vein, we see so many sympathetic media profiles of the Dixie Chicks in the aftermath of an unfortunate comment criticizing President George W. Bush. Those who refused to buy the group’s CDs in light of the incident are portrayed as backward and unforgiving, rather than as patriotic and proud of the Commander-in-Chief.

Free speech is, indeed, priceless. But when it is misused, the costs can be high for our democracy and our security. It’s one thing for a radio talk show host to spout off -- it’s quite another for a Senator to criticize our troops in wartime.

The media should at least hold Senator Kerry to as high a standard as they reserve for Gibson and Rush.

If you want a leader to lead following a moral code of ethics, that leader must have a sound foundation upon which he bases his personal morality. If they do not have a moral foundation, such as the bible, we should not be surprised at ANY immoral or unethical action they make. It is OUR responsibility to make sure our leaders, those who represent us, have a sound moral foundation. - Alain

I would rather live my life as if there is a God,
and die to find out there isn't,
than live my life as if there isn't,
and die to find out there is.

Send A Link For This Article To A Friend

Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below

Election 2006: Choosing The Lesser Of Two Evils?

POLITICS / ELECTION 2006: CHOOSING THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS?

Alains Newsletter

Smiley Flag Waver The 2006 election leaves voters in a "no-win" situation, no matter which of the two major political parties, Democrat or Republican, they chose to vote for.

While much of the following, biased, distorted, content regarding the Republican Party agenda is true, Democrats will harp on it to justify a Democrat vote in an attempt to advance their own anti-America, anti-Christian, anti-Conservative agendas. A vote for the Democrat Party is no alternative.

Such rhetoric only tends to create a smoke-screen to avoid addressing the real issues facing the American people, ignoring the evaluation of third-party choices by voters, where viable, qualified third-party candidates are available.

In essence, the two major political parties have become one, both advancing anti-American, anti-Constitutional agendas. The 2006 election thus leaves voters with a choice of either voting for Republican police-state Nazi Facism on the right, or Liberal Democrat, Communist, Marxist, Socialism on the left.

Which is the lesser of two evils?

America’s Slide to Totalitarianism

~ By Robert Parry
November 6, 2006

If the last-minute polling trends showing a powerful Republican comeback carry through the Nov. 7 elections, the end of America as we have known it for more than two centuries will be at hand.

In a political version of “Invasion of the Body Snatchers,” the country might look the same -- people driving their SUVs to the mall or eating at fast-food restaurants -- but it will have internally changed. Election 2006 will have been the ratification of George W. Bush’s grim vision of endless war abroad and the end of a constitutional Republic at home.

Though not understanding the full import of their actions, the American voters will have endorsed the elimination of the “unalienable” rights handed down to them by the Founders, instead allowing “plenary” -- or unlimited -- power to be invested in the President. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights will have been turned into irrelevant pieces of paper.

Bush will have the authority to send American young men and women to war wherever he chooses; he will have the power to spy on anyone he wants; he could imprison citizens and non-citizens alike under the Military Commissions Act while denying the detainees the right to file motions with civilian courts; he could order harsh interrogations which could then be used to convict defendants (assuming they are ever brought before one of his hand-picked tribunals for trial, conviction and execution); he could ignore or reinterpret any laws that he doesn’t like; he would have rubber-stamps in Congress and very soon in the U.S. Supreme Court; he and his potential successors would be, in effect, dictators.

While many Americans don’t want to believe that an American totalitarian state is possible, let alone an impending threat, Bush’s last-minute barnstorming, which has equated a Democratic congressional majority with a victory for terrorism, has put that dark reality within a day’s reach.

The American Right has thrown all its prodigious forces into the fray, particularly its powerful news media -- from talk radio and Fox News to the Internet and print publications -- making hay out of everything from John Kerry’s botched joke to the death sentence against Saddam Hussein.

Indeed, one reason this new America has the look of incipient totalitarianism is that the Right has created such a powerful media apparatus that it can virtually create its own reality. Most often, the cowed mainstream media tags along, as happened with the media frenzy over Kerry’s misinterpreted joke.

Assuming the Republican comeback trends continue through Election Day -- and the GOP holds both houses of Congress -- it will be hard to imagine how this right-wing juggernaut will ever be stopped. The only dissent that will be tolerated in the future is the ineffectual kind, the sort that doesn’t threaten the power structure.

Timid Protest

By the time, “respected” mainstream figures finally raise their hands in timid protest, it will be too late. An example of the tepid warnings from prominent insiders was the New York Times Op-Ed piece on Nov. 6 by former ABC news anchor Ted Koppel.

Koppel, who clambered aboard the Iraq War bandwagon in 2003, now sees some reason for concern in the way the Bush administration is waging the “war on terror” abroad by throttling liberties at home.

With mild alarm, Koppel noted that senior administration officials have framed the “war on terror” in “existential terms,” which means that they are claiming that the very existence of the United States is at risk. That, these officials argue, justifies extraordinary legal strategies for eliminating perceived enemies simply for associating with some suspect group.

“This practice falls into the category of what Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty calls ‘preventive prosecution,’” Koppel wrote. “It’s an interesting concept: a form of anticipatory justice. Faced with the possible convergence between terrorism and a weapon of mass destruction, the argument goes, the technicality of waiting for a crime to be committed before it can be punished must give way to pre-emption.”

Koppel described this “anticipatory justice” as “the somewhat jarring notion of recalibrating our constitutional protections.”

But Koppel then offers only the modest suggestion that “we should be building protective ramparts around our legal system, safeguarding our own freedoms, focusing on our own carefully constructed democracy and leading by example.” [NYT, Nov. 6, 2006]

To say that “respected” figures like Koppel don’t get the magnitude of the situation would be an understatement.

The Bush administration -- and the Republican-controlled Congress -- are driving the United States toward a new-age totalitarianism that can imprison people indefinitely without trial for what the government thinks they might do. Yet, instead of screaming from the rooftops, these cautious sages -- not willing to risk their standing in polite Washington society -- offer up only a few little safeguards as a reaction to these extraordinary developments.

If one combines the language of the Military Commissions Act with deputy attorney general McNulty’s vision of “preventive prosecution” -- and then add in the growing possibility of another Republican victory on Nov. 7 -- the United States is on the verge of being transformed into an Orwellian nightmare.

Election Stakes

But these stakes of this election are almost never explained.

The New York Times editorial page even continues to give the misleading impression that the Military Commissions Act only applies to non-citizens. The Times and other mainstream newspapers have yet to address the curious language deep inside the new law which would seem to throw U.S. citizens into the same draconian system with non-citizens.

While the Military Commissions Act does explicitly strip non-U.S. citizens of habeas corpus rights – the point that the Times has stayed focused on -- the law also contains vague wording about detaining “any person” who allegedly aids terrorists.

“Any person is punishable as a principal under this chapter who commits an offense punishable by this chapter, or aids, abets, counsels, commands, or procures its commission,” according to the law, passed by the Republican-controlled Congress in September and signed by Bush on Oct. 17.

“Any person subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States ... shall be punished as a military commission … may direct.” [Emphases added]

The references to “any person” and specifically to those with “an allegiance or duty to the United States” would seem to apply to American citizens, placing them inside the military commissions and outside the reach of regular civilian courts.

Another provision of the law states that once a person is detained, “no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause of action whatsoever … relating to the prosecution, trial, or judgment of a military commission under this chapter, including challenges to the lawfulness of procedures of military commissions.”

That court-stripping provision -- barring “any claim or cause of action whatsoever” -- would seem to deny American citizens habeas corpus rights just as it does for non-citizens. If a person can’t file a motion with a court, he can’t assert any constitutional right, including habeas corpus.

Other constitutional protections in the Bill of Rights -- such as a speedy trial, the right to reasonable bail and the ban on “cruel and unusual punishment” -- appear to be beyond an American detainee’s reach as well.

The new tribunal law also applies to alleged spies, defined as “any person” who “collects or attempts to collect information by clandestine means or while acting under false pretenses, for the purpose of conveying such information to an enemy of the United States.”

Since the Bush administration and its political allies often have accused American journalists of conveying information to terrorists via stories citing confidential sources, it’s conceivable that this provision could apply to such articles, either for journalists or their sources.

It’s also likely that Bush would execute these powers during a serious terrorist incident inside the United States. Amid public anger and fear, Bush or some future President could begin rounding up citizens and non-citizens alike with little thought about a narrow interpretation of the law.

It could take years before the U.S. Supreme Court even addresses these detentions and -- given the increasingly right-wing make-up of the Court -- there would be no assurance that the justices wouldn’t endorse the President’s extraordinary powers.

Bush now knows he has four solid Supreme Court votes for his reinterpretation of the U.S. system of government -- John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. All Bush needs is one more vacancy among the five other justices to secure the court’s blessing for his all-powerful executive.

Padilla Case

Even without the new law, Bush has asserted his right to imprison American citizens indefinitely. In spring 2002, Bush ordered the military detention of American citizen Jose Padilla as an “enemy combatant.”

Administration officials deemed Padilla a “bad guy” who was contemplating a radioactive “dirty bomb” attack, though no such charges were ever filed and no evidence ever presented in court.

The point of the Padilla case was that Bush could assert his “plenary” powers to override habeas corpus rights of a fair trial and detain anyone he wanted indefinitely. Three-and-a-half years later -- facing likely reversal by the U.S. Supreme Court -- Bush turned Padilla over to the civilian courts to face unrelated charges of supporting a terrorist group.

But Bush never renounced his right to imprison American citizens simply on a presidential say-so.

Add in the Bush administration’s concept of “preventive prosecutions” based on predictions of a person’s behavior and the United States is rapidly approaching a futuristic totalitarianism, which will seek to silence and imprison anyone who is deemed a boon to terrorists.

While the U.S. news media again has failed to alert the American people of these stakes -- much as it failed to question the administration’s case for war in Iraq in 2002-03 -- President Bush keeps hitting the “war on terror” hot buttons of fear.

Bush’s stump speeches, which present the Democrats essentially as nutty cowards, are driving his supporters into frenzies and stampeding Middle Americans back toward the perceived protection of Bush, the strongman.

Fresh Doubts

Ironically, however, the growing likelihood of a Republican victory giving Bush another blank check is coinciding with statements by more and more national security experts questioning Bush’s “war on terror” strategies.

For instance, Tyler Drumheller, former chief of CIA clandestine operations in Europe, wrote in a new book, On the Brink, that the Bush administration has resorted to scare tactics with the American public rather than addressing the terror issue responsibly.

“We have to be vigilant and keep track in communities where suicide bombers may be waiting to pounce,” Drumheller wrote. “But at the same time we have to be honest and accept that sometimes we cannot prevent such attacks from happening, instead of pretending that we can wipe terrorism out completely.

“September 11 was a freak attack, a perfect storm. The chances of another attack on the scale of 9/11 happening are extremely slim. The bloodshed should have prompted an honest review of how we run our foreign policy and law enforcement.

“Instead of taking a long, sober look at those issues, the Bush administration put the country in a state of prolonged panic.”

On the eve of Election 2006, Bush is exploiting that “prolonged panic” again, but the stakes are rising. On one level, Bush is seeking to consolidate one-party rule in Washington; on another, he is stripping the American people of the rights that have defined the nation for more than two centuries.

Whether the American people will understand what they’re doing or not, the Nov. 7 elections will either ratify or reject Bush’s plan for terminating the American Republic.

I would rather live my life as if there is a God,
and die to find out there isn't,
than live my life as if there isn't,
and die to find out there is.

Send A Link For This Article To A Friend

Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below

Saturday, October 14, 2006

Katie Couric Can't Save CBS' Evening News

MEDIA / KATIE COURIC CAN'T SAVE CBS' EVENING NEWS

Donklephant

The CU Smiley Guy .. Sorry folks, I just REALLY thought this smiley was cool and had to share it. CU ADMIN The evening news has been in a ratings freefall for over two decades and there is absolutely no reason to believe Couric or anyone else can convince us to go back to the good-old-days of serious-voiced oracles rationing out the day’s news in 3-minute bundles. That time has passed. The news is no longer a 30-minute experience. Now it’s a constant, unstoppable stream of stories and opinions available from multiple 24-hour cable news stations and innumerable Internet news sites.

The news can no longer be corralled by three anchors in three big chairs. Yet corralling the news is all the nightly newscasts are good for. “Here’s what you should know for today,” they say and sometimes even add “and here’s what you should think about it.” That worked when they were the gatekeepers. But the gates have been smashed, obliterated and all the anchors are left to do is hold up splintered remnants of what was and pretend they are showing us “the news.”

Couric Can’t Save Evening News

~ By Alan Stewart Carl

So the sprightly Katie Couric is taking the big seat at CBS Evening News. Now people are asking, does she have the gravitas for it? Does she have the skill? Can she muster the sturdy gaze of courage necessary when the news turns bad?

My only question is: does it matter?

The network evening news is, for all intents and purposes, irrelevant. Yes, somewhere around a combined 30 million people still watch the three network’s evening newscasts but, then again, a lot of people still own VCRs too -- doesn’t mean there’s a future in it.

The fact is, the evening news has been in a ratings freefall for over two decades and there is absolutely no reason to believe Couric or anyone else can convince us to go back to the good-old-days of serious-voiced oracles rationing out the day’s news in 3-minute bundles. That time has passed. The news is no longer a 30-minute experience. Now it’s a constant, unstoppable stream of stories and opinions available from multiple 24-hour cable news stations and innumerable Internet news sites.

Not surprisingly, this development horrifies some of the old masters of the form. The great Walter Cronkite, in an interview last year, said of the decline in traditional news sources:

"The fact that readership of newspapers is down and the viewing of news on television is down -- in the network form, that is -- with that, we should consider that democracy is in danger,” he said. “As old Thomas Jefferson said, 'the nation that expects to be ignorant and free expects what never will and never can be.' The problem we’ve got with newspapers and television today, television news, is, I think, the fact that the public is too ignorant to understand the important news of the day. It wants to be entertained rather than informed."

There you have it. The problem isn’t obsolescence of the form. The problem is that we the people are too ignorant to see the importance in what the network evening news deems important. The blind egotism of that statement is staggering and while Cronkite does not represent those running the three network evening newscasts, can we really doubt that his opinions are still quite prevalent among producers and anchors?

I really don’t think there is a way to save the network evening news. But if they want a fighting chance, the first step is realizing they are but a small piece of the modern news environment. They cannot be the gatekeepers, the opinion-makers. They have to be satisfied with being something less. Maybe by reducing their expectations they can improve their appeal. Maybe.

But my gut tells me Ms. Couric has just stepped aboard a slowly but unstoppably sinking ship.

Send A Link For This Article To A Friend

Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below