Brian Williams, a network news anchor, recently wrote a column lamenting the fact that people no longer watch network news because they are too wrapped up in the dynamic social world to be discovered on the web. He wrote that it is now a common, everyday occurrence for Americans who wish to consume only what the individual is interested in, ie; there are television networks that agree with your views, iPods that play only music you already know you like, internet programs ready to filter out all but the news you want to hear, and he writes this as if it is a bad thing. Could it be that he is becoming irrelevant? Could it be that as individuals figure out that he has nothing worthwhile to add to the conversation that they would rather not waste the time listening to him? Could it be that he is the anchor of one of the programs Americans use filters to erase from their local screen? Steve Johnson, a Time magazine writer, wrote an article on the same subject, but rather than belaboring the fact that Americans now spend more time online than watching a line on network news, he took a more positive view. Steve's view is that even though Americans may not be getting their news from one of three network channels as in previous years, the citizens know what they want and in reality, the 'experts realize that they can't compete with the real experts: the people who live in these communities and know all the issues -- small and large -- that shape their daily lives. In other words (Brian) is no more important to them than any other news pundit, and probably less so, because as Brian himself states "there are television networks that already...

Well duh!
Brian writes as if he is angry that the average American citizen has bypassed the traditional national media in search of a more meaningful dialogue, and many have found that dialogue on websites that cater to local issues, local information, or information that more closely aligns with the way the average American citizen believes.

Two writers, each one articulate concerning their viewpoint, yet one sees the recent onslaught of media accessibility to the common man as a harbinger of even worse things to come, while the other views the same phenomenon as an event to be heralded. On the one hand you have the network news anchor bemoaning the fact that "it's all about you" which ironically enough, according to Brian it is all about him. After all, America needs to know that "the problem is that there's a lot of information out there that citizens in an informed democracy need to know in our complicated world" and, of course, he's the only one that can keep us so informed. Williams words are all about him, and he doesn't even get the true irony of it all; that Americans don't really care that he is a network news anchor man, instead (as Steve would put it) what is so interesting about the local conversations now taking place on the web is that they involve experiences that the experts in traditional media have largely ignored.

Of course, Brian may not even know that he is deluding himself, he may believe that he is truly superior to the average citizen and that by not listening to him, not hearing his words of wisdom, there is a…