Poor Dan. He's gone from a tack-sharp reporter to a confused old man. I can't disagree with his main assessment of American media. However, the free market system he says he supports has been the cause of the consolidation of power he decries. It will not save it, but will rather force more concentration on the bottom line, and less devotion to expensive investigative journalism--and thus continue the reliance on biased government sources. This also tends to cut down on truly independent voices because it's cheaper to pick up the AP feed. As for the Internet, it does have the potential to be a platform for more voices. I get foreign news online, and I've seen photos posted by people who actually live in regions in the news--the man on the ground, not just an embedded reporter. But the very nature of the Internet also makes it hard to know who posters are and how informed they are. Somebody who says they're an Afghan teacher might be the Taliban minister of information. I can post an opinion, a digest, a blog, whatever. But it relies on what I've read elsewhere. I don't have the resources to investigate myself, to go to Zimbabwe or Iraq, to source original information or opposing voices. Plus, the Afghan teacher who might really have something to say might not have Internet access. And, aside from photos, I wouldn't understand anyway. I rely on news organizations for translation. In the case of that famous quote from Iran's president about wiping Israel off the face of the map--which it now appears, too late, was badly translated--this can clearly be dangerous. But it's another thing I don't have the resources to do. Before the Internet can truly be useful as a global news media, access, validation of sources, and language barriers all have to be solved.