He’s right. But it’s not just obsession. It’s also fear and anger. When Fox News’ Sean Hannity used video from a different event to “prove” his particular ideology was gaining ground — only to be caught by none other than comedian Jon Stewart — I got angry. And not because it’s Fox. But because no matter its bent, it’s still a news network. These days, it seems that networks claim to be news, but most of the coverage is in fact opinion. Opinion has its place, but it should have some basis on reality. On journalism. And that’s fading too quickly for my taste.

Too many Americans don’t realize that Sean Hannity is not a journalist. Glenn Beck is not a reporter. Rachel Maddow? Nope. Keith Olbermann? Sorry. He, too, is a commentator. Being on TV and being a journalist are not the same thing. But real journalism, real reporting, real news can’t compete with the ratings. And to some extent, I get it. People yelling is entertainment. But even as commentators, you’d think there would be some obligation to truth. Biased truth, fine. But truth.

So, for my friend who thinks I’m obsessed … Yeah, OK, maybe. But we are living in a world where Walter Cronkite has died, and Jon Stewart is our most trusted news source. And I don’t know who to trust. And that’s the real problem. That’s my real obsession.

In today’s post, he comments on the media’s ethnic profiling in its Mt. Hood coverage. Click here to check it out.

I make it a point not to discuss politics in this blog. For one thing, it’s a measure of self-preservation — I don’t want to miss out on opportunities to do good work because a client dislikes my politics. For another, I want to stay on-message. The AVC blog relates to communications, media, marketing, PR, language.

But these days, I can’t help but be reminded of the various points where politics and communication collide. Staying on-message has never been so important. And in a time when newspapers are folding and reporters are seeking new careers, never before has good journalism really mattered.

I’m wrapped up in the health care debate. How can you not be to some extent? It’s everywhere. There’s White House messaging, congressional messaging from both sides of the aisle, various news reports, third-party analyses of the arguments. And yet, with all this information, very few of us can grasp what will be in any measure of a bill. We are trying to understand the issue and reach an informed conclusion, but it’s increasingly hard to find civil debate — anywhere. For me, there are just too many messages. And it seems that instead of talking about the issue and really delving into it, pundits and politicians and media figures are talking AT us — telling us the world might end if we do it … or if we don’t. But truly informed, fact-based debates are lacking. (Maybe I’m just not looking hard enough …?)

I recently posted a commentary about health care on my personal Facebook page. I added no commentary of my own. A handful of friends “liked” it or commented. Three friends in particular kept the conversation going. The thread now stands at a hearty 35 comments. Aside from being my most successful FB post (when measured by the activity that follows), the discussion that ensued was controlled. Passionate, but controlled. Participants’ political views ranged from libertarian to near-socialist. But questions were being asked and answered. Ideas were being heard and considered. Experiences were shared. We are nowhere near being able to solve the health care issue in this contrary, but I think there’s something to be said for the nature of the conversation. It has — to some extent — given me faith that such a conversation is possible. If you have the right people in the room.

We all have a stake in what happens — and from where I sit, the first obligation our news media and our leaders have is an obligation to civil, informed discourse. Don’t market to us. Don’t play PR tricks. Don’t fling incendiary catchprases at each other. Don’t mislead us. Persuade us with facts. Yes, actual facts. This is not a light beer you’re selling. It’s a critical change in policy. I crave civil and clear communication about this issue … and other issues, too. And I’m left to wonder if I’ll ever get it.

And herein lies the problem. At some point, newspapers decided that CONTENT didn’t have value. Newsprint, ink, running the presses, delivering the paper — these had value because they had hard costs. The content’s value, though, was demeaned when news organizations began posting it online for free. And as newspapers begin to shut down, they absolutely must review their business model. Advertising alone isn’t enough to sustain. If you have a nonprofit, a la NPR, you have different options available to you. (I personally contribute to NPR because I value its content.)

A Harlingen, Texas newspaper, the Valley Morning Star (a Freedom Communications paper), has recognized this. Subscribers to the print edition will have free access to the online edition, but there is no more free online access. In a story in the paper explaining the changes, the paper’s publisher, Tyler Patton, said this: “The days of giving content away, which costs money to create and for which we charge our print subscribers, I think, are just over.”

Finally. But it’s not like online readers are getting ripped off. Online access will cost a mere 3.95/month.

Perhaps this is a shift in the way newspapers will be run — you can’t give away your product and expect to run a viable business for long. And the bottom line is this: If your content is good, people will pay for it. People will pay a premium for premium news products like the NYTimes or the Wall Street Journal. And if the product is poor, the same thing will happen as happens with any bad product — it will fail in the marketplace. And that’s OK.

Content has a value. And it’s exciting to see this recognized.