Hard to believe Adam Ellick could write this without dissolving into helpless laughter …
Media critics here say the problem lies with a lack of experienced reporters, and a lack of investment in investigative journalism, which has created a troubling tilt toward right-wing, highly opinionated talk shows. After all, talk shows are cheaper to produce, and easier to make.
Granted, hard-hitting journalism in this country can often be dangerous, but another problem is sourcing. The same relative handful of personalities make rounds on the talk show circuit. Same people. Different day. Different channel. Most are more opinionated than informed, and as a result, talk shows are giving prominence to incredible sources.
For example, one of the more hard-hitting hosts is questioning a politician … who is convinced that the United States staged the Times Square bombing. His political résumé centers on education and religious affairs, not security, international affairs or terrorism. At one point, he even forgets the name of the bomber. The host does not press him to back up his claims.
Why is a national television program asking a politician without credentials in international security about a closed investigation taking part in another country? In some respects, the blame can be shared among conspiratorial guests, the ratings-obsessed producers who book them, and pandering hosts who play to their audience’s worst instincts.
… the way Jim Newell, and therefore I, did.
Oh, by the way, Ellick is talking about Pakistan. Wasn't all that obvious, was it?