Media trust fades in Internet age

The media today has changed dramatically from where it was even 10 years ago.

With the Internet becoming as popular as it has, the cycle of new information is literally nonstop. However, because of the popularity of Internet, anyone can post an opinion to a blog regardless of how informed they are, diminishing the power of print media. This leads to fewer reliable sources of factual information.

Stations like Fox News and HLN take advantage of this. Nancy Grace essentially spews out whatever information she so pleases (look at the Duke lacrosse case from 2006). Bill O'Reilly can be witnessed linking marijuana and texting addiction, leaving an expert in psychology speechless.

The only reliable news seems to come from John Stewart and Stephen Colbert. While Stewart leans left, he does not hide the left's mistakes, something Fox cannot attest to for the right.

Newspapers and magazines are not exempt. On the cover of the Chicago Tribune recently was the Bears' loss to Green Bay. This is not news, it is entertainment. Time magazine seems to focus more on Taylor Swift, who was on their most recent cover, than the Ukraine, the latest updates on ISIS, or even President Obama's speech on immigration.

In fact, the only major U.S. publication to have an analyst currently living in Baghdad full-time is The New York Times.

In addition, the best magazine for U.S. news is the British Economist. Clearly something needs to change.

People aren't interested in news to know what is going on around the world anymore, they simply want entertainment. And while entertainment may be entertaining, an uninformed populace causes major problems.

So the next time you complain about nothing getting done in Congress, or find yourself disagreeing with our involvement overseas, ask yourself; "Where did my information come from?"

Robert Jordan DuPont

Mundelein