But with that limited amount of access (plus the dearth of other sources - looking up the details of the news stories was not really an option. For one thing, most libraries close by the time the evening news aired, and for another, there was no internet, and newspapers were almost as limited), the big 3 had a disproportionate credibility and were practically an authority without any real basis. Just as one example, Walter Cronkite's mischaracterization of the Tet Offensive in 1968. Any serious historian or military history buff can tell you that that offensive was the Viet Cong shooting off their last round. Tactically and strategically, they were defeated everywhere they struck at the cost of enormous casualties to themselves, gained no significant territory, did very little damage, especially in relation to the harm they took and they only were able to pull off the attack in the first place by disregarding an informal holiday truce (which would, in the normal course of events, completely destroy their credibility for future agreements or truces). But Cronkite, whether through deliberate politically-motivated calculation, ideologically-inspired wishful thinking, or innocent ignorance or narrow perspective, gave a completely inaccurrate and distorted view of the offensive, and one that accorded perfectly with the psychological objectives of the North Vietnamese. The point of the Tet Offensive was not to actually achieve military goals, it was to maintain the illusion of North Vietnam and the VC as a viable fighting force with sufficient resources to carry on the war, when the reverse was true. Whether innocently or deliberately, Cronkite's largely inaccurrate reporting played into their hands and achieved the enemy's goal. And there was no competing media to cry foul or catch him up on his mistake. As a counter-example, when Dan Rather was taken in by forged transcripts of Bush II's service record, alternative media exposed the inconsistencies, which CBS had little motive for doing. In that older era, the media could make a gentlemen's agreement to sit on a president's extramarital indiscretions or substance abuse issues, but the Drudge report broke the story on the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal when Newsweek tried to do the same thing.

The news might be more sensationalized, but there's always someone ready to call them on their BS, whether Bill O'Reilly or Jon Stewart or private bloggers. As far as the concentration on sensationalism over substance, anyone who goes looking for substance on television deserves what he gets, IMHO. In a society of informed people making thoughtful choices, the TV news only serves the function of altering the public that an issue exists, allowing them to find out the facts for themselves. And there really is no excuse for not being informed anymore, largely in part due to the plethora of sources available, thanks to the wide open field of media competition.

No matter how you do it, the news is still going to be chosen, written and presented by human beings with opinions and interests, and you are never going to get an authoritative and absolutely objective media source. The only way you CAN have that, is if someone decides to try marketing a show like that AND the general public buys into it, and that can only happen in a relatively open and uncensored and unlicensed media marketplace. The other way lies Pravda and other media monopolies. FDR did the same thing with the radio during his presidency, weilding FCC licenses like a club against oppositional programming, and as a carrot and stick to get airtime when he wished for his "Fireside Chats".

And IMO, Butler's bully pulpit is an example of this - she was granted the "official" franchise by being allowed to blog about the series by Tor.com, and rather than having her work being just out there, where it can compete with anyone else who might want to do a re-read, she has the cachet of the publisher's apparent approval. She has that same illusion of objectivity that the news anchors had on the broadcast networks in the old days, because that's what people associate with an authoritative platform. CBS, ABC & NBC got away with that illusion because there was no voice loud enough or with the sources to object, protest or present a different perspective.

I don't know, I think it has actually leveled the playing field. The reason Nixon had to leave office one step ahead of the impeachment axe, while Clinto survived his own impeachment was that there was a loud voice to defend Clinton, while the leading newspapers and monolithic TV industry could slant coverage against Nixon, just enough to sway minds, while maintaining the appearance of objectivity.

When one side is completely disarmed, a couple of pistols in the other side's hands are generally enough to carry the day, even without the actual use of force. That's how bank robbers get away with it, and that's how less than 20 9-11 hijackers slaughtered four airliners full of people armed with only box cutters. When there was only the left-leaning big three, they only needed the brandish the box cutter of a mild editorial criticism of the administration. When Clinton was exposed doing every abuse of power Nixon pulled and more (including citing the exact same executive privilege to withhold information), his media partisans were not the unarmed masses facing a few armed foes. Both sides had a pulpit, or, continuing the analogy, both sides had weapons, and were quicker to use them. It might have been noisier, it might have been messier and more disturbing, but it was not one-sided. A peace that only exists because one side is held down is not truly a peace. A war might be uglier, but it can also be more fair. The major city left standing in Eastern & Central Europe after World War 2 was Prague - the city that was betrayed at Munich, and allowed to be swallowed up by Hitler with little resistance. The ruins of Warsaw, Berlin & Budapest might have been more disturbing or unseemly, but they resulted from a better scenario - people fighting back against a tyrant. And that's also what we have in the current media atmosphere. It might be messier, but at least both (or rather all) sides have a say. It's still a house-to-house battle, rather than the triumphant parade down main street of one side or the other's Anschluss.

How does this relate to Butler? Well, she's giving a strictly editorial and personal blog from a position and site that implies a certain nuetrality. She isn't restricting her editorial opinion to the writing and its presentation, but on how well the books, characters and settings accord with an extremist ideological position. Kind of like if a white supremacist got his own segment on 60 minutes, without it being labeled as a particular ideological perspective, and there is apparently no oversight, or else Tor.com is fine with a narrow-perspective ideologue reviewing books whose central theme is in opposition to her ideology, which she presents as the moral or objectively accurrate perspective. It's like a Christian Fundamentalist or Islamic Radical commenting on internal Vatican policies or a papal election, and bitching about the clergymen consuming alcohol.