Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) came out swinging against the polarizing nature of media--identifying 24 hour news, talk radio, and PAC's like MoveOn.org.

Thanks for the sobering and well-needed comments, but, how does one protest against a messenger?

Or at least, a messenger who likes to add commentary, context, and 'friendly guidance' to the audience?

Propaganda certainly ain't what it used to be--but one could argue that it's much more subtly effective. Nowadays, we don't need the government to control the message. We have the Media to do it for them. With the death of Walter Cronkite, many have decried the invasion of 'Entertainment News,' citing flashy visuals and bombastic pundits in leue of the facts. But isn't that what people what these days? On that note, isn't the type of news they're reporting on, the type of shows they produce, the type of hosts they employ, also all part of 'what we want?'

Well, how depressing. In the end, numbers and ratings do mean everything, and until Social Media becomes the decentralized life force of information transfer that it could be... we have people who go out and scream at the government because Fox News told them to.

Funny little clip on protests lately:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Tea Partiers Advise G20 Protesters
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Ron Paul Interview

Of course, this leads to the next issue of trust. How do we trust the information we're given as truth? Well, we really have to rely on what we know ourselves to apply context, and this is where education and opportunity come in.

Ew. This is getting to be far too complex of an issue, but for some reason, I get the feeling that education is at the heart of all of this. Anyone else have some thoughts?

Here's a liberal hit on conservative icons like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. (I wonder what their educational background is?)