Over the last week I've become an accidental expert on the technical issues
I believe this is because many news sources have found it important to explain the iPhone's deficiencies to their respective audiences. I would suspect that the majority of these audiences don't own or even plan on owning an iPhone.
The reporting, for the most part, has been straightforward and has done a good job of educating the public on what issues to consider when deciding whether or not
My question is, where is this straightforward analysis when there is an important issue? For example, during the health care debate, it felt nearly impossible to get unbiased journalism. The amount of misinformation seemed to be as readily available as the well-researched facts that one would expect.
Why can't we keep the editorializing out of reporting when it comes to a large universal issue?
We've become so disenfranchised with the idea of actually improving our country that we're just resigned to have a drama play out in the form of a split screen, with so-called experts delivering their best Atticus Finch impersonation. Good for late-night comedy, bad for Americans.
Is it that the facts aren't so good for one agenda's bottom line? Is it that we believe what happens in the media is somehow separate from reality?
Maybe it's just that the path to real progress is too boring for prime time. How long will we continue to support reporting that is so clearly lobbying in disguise?
If we don't make journalistic integrity an issue, the iPhone's "death grip" will be the least of our worries. And the fact that you know what the iPhone's "death grip" is proves my point.
Jay Underwood
Stafford