David Broder wrote a book, "Behind the Front Page", which described part of the problem. He used the McCarthy era as an example.

McCarthy gained part of his credibility through the newspapers covering him. Much of what he was doing was patently nonsense and easily countered. However, the papers gave him equal time. One article from McCarthy's press campaign, one column countering it.

What he regrets is that there weren't 10 or 15 columns countering it. Folks where writing them, but the editors weren't publishing them in the interest of "fairness".

I think it's the same with many issues now. Another study confirming global warming isn't "news". However, someone coming along who doesn't agree with the concensus is "news", and gets play.

Homeopathy is one of those things for which I've had contempt all my adult life. At one point I had to research it see if I was right. I still have contempt, though it is still given some degree of credibility in that it's not laughed out of the papers.

(That the US would abandon Vietnam and Korean War POWs was beyond my comprehension, and I thought those folks were nuts. Had to research it, and, bigawd, they are correct. The USA, the Republican Administrations of Eisenhower and Nixon, abandoned American POWs forever.)

Anyway, it's a good book.

Arf