the trouble is the medium. those graphics are mostly concerned with television. the world is definitely moving in the direction of visual information delivery systems. it's been a blessing in many ways, primarily artistic, but it's unquestionably a curse on news dissemination. there's just no way to substantiate and thoroughly examine the complex issues of our time, even with 24 hours every day.
print isn't dead yet, and at least you americans should be thankful that your most highly distributed newspapers are still largely independent. they have problems of their own of course. not so much with hyperbole/straight propaganda like the network news stations, their problem is a narrow scope and a strong tendency to omit alternative viewpoints. along with their collusion with elites, which joe is right about, just not in exactly the way he thinks he is. but at the very least papers like the times, post, tribune, etc have credibility on their side, are largely reliable in their fact checking, and don't sugarcoat their shit like cnn and the rest.
the differences between print news and tv news are beyond count, but the most significant one is that television by its very nature subordinates substance to style. with specific regards to the personality in charge of telling you the news. whereas in print the byline is just a random name that means little, in tv the dealbreaking attributes for an anchor/pundit aren't intelligence or integrity first and foremost, but instead shit like charisma and appearance and rhetorical skills take center stage. which totally zaps a large percentage of potential public dissidents, folks trying to resist the system from within. already a virtually impossible task.
hell for the same reason -- the shift to a 'visual economy' -- politics have undergone a very similar phenomenon. at least at the federal level anyway.
The internet is the great equalizer in this situation. With sites like reddit, millions of blogs, access to other news outlets like BBC, etc. you can get a huge variety of opinions.
and this here, which is supposed to be the great answer to the problem of a dying news industry, in reality solves nothing. or at least very little. the thought that we can democratize news reporting is indistinguishable from the idea that anybody can report the news and do a good job. which is complete bull. it takes a ton of hard research and very stringent critical analysis, along with a barrel of skepticism, to fit the small stories properly into their broader trends. the result of the blogosphere is collective adhd. 90% of it is re-worded regurgitation anyway. and it's rare to find good bloggers who can successfully survey the forest rather than going microscopic on each individual tree.
bottom line: im pretty pessimistic lol