Brian Williams, a Network News Anchor, Recently

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 agrees with your views" (speaking to the American public). 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 real chance that democracy will be thrown out the window. His attempt to tie democracy to limited media access is rather ironic, real democracy (according to America's Founding Fathers) includes the right to free speech, and to practice that speech wherever and whenever we feel like it.

That freedom of speech also applies to the ability to listen or not listen to network news anchors who think they have all the answers, and it includes those neighborhood social experts who wish to espouse the latest neighborhood happenings to friends and neighbors. The opportunity to click a switch and be rid of Brian Williams (or to not even have him on in the first place) is the true freedom of speech, and it is exercised every day by millions of people, not only in America, but around the world. Sadly, Brian denigrates the fact that there is a "treasure trove of video: adults juggling kittens, ill-fated dance moves at wedding receptions, political rants delivered to camera" that is causing a mass migration to the internet, and away from network television. If it were not so ironically sad, it would actually be quite humorous. Brian does get one thing straight and that is that online accessibility to those items mentioned above (and millions of other items as well) does exist to "fill a perceived need." One could question why that need is perceived in the first place; could it be because the networks and their high and mighty anchors failed to fill it?

Steve, on the other hand, does not think that it is all about him. He writes his article as if he is a journalist, oh yeah, he is. Perhaps that is the difference between writing articles that can be hacked to pieces by discerning editors, and reading 30-second soundbites into a camera. One reporter knows that the story is what is most important, while the other thinks that it is the reporter that is what should take precedence. Brian seems to believe the words that he wrote "we've raised a generation of Americans on a mantra of love and the importance of self as taught by brightly colored authority figures with names like Barney and Elmo" do not also pertain to him, when ironically enough, he is the perfect example of the problem he effaces.