The (Possible) Gospel According to Jon

By Baxter

We cats hosted a couple of intelligent and thoughtful out-of-town guests for the Rally to Restore Sanity on October 30. The next morning — over coffee and scrambled eggs, and with the kitchen door open to the cool Virginia air and our autumn-tinged woods — one guest said something with which we think Jon Stewart would agree.

It was this: That in these fraught and emotional times, she longed for the days in which America got its current-events information from (gesturing at the multiple newspapers scattered on the breakfast table) reliable, hard-copy news sources with stories that were solidly sourced, checked, double-checked, and carefully, intelligently edited.

Oh, and maybe the editorial page would give you an opinion on same.

But — today, our 24-hour TV news culture demands otherwise. We cats are distressed about that. When CNN debuted so many years ago, we were hopeful that it meant that we could access news content similar to our newspapers' — except that we could do it any time of day. Wrong! Yes, we could get news any time we wanted. But no, it would not be like a newspaper. Instead, it would be unsourced, untempered, sensationalistic, trivial, combative, simplistic, and (now) heavily influenced by political opinion. Somehow we do not think this is what Edward R. Murrow would have had in mind.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is what Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert may have been trying to tell us: That we must infuse some intelligence, moderation, reasonableness and thought into our round-the-clock access of news. Twenty-four-hour journalism is not only a blessing but a crucial player in a successful democracy — if it's handled right.

Of course, we don't mean "right" as in, "right wing." We mean "right" as in "intelligently sourced, edited and thoughtful."  Oh, and not loud and obnoxious.

Anyone ready to step up to the plate?

We cats are thinking Rachel. We're not sure why — except that we don't really remember Jon Stewart going after her when he goes after the media screamers. Are we correct about that? In other words, is there anyone else who could claim the mantle of reasonable, thoughtful, intelligent coverage as effectively as Rachel could?

We wait for input. In the meantime, we cats PURR.