i think you can talk about “complex” topics on a lvl appropriate for the masses without severely dumbing them down. the host could also provide short explanatory comments and intros, and the station could make it a point to host guests who talk in plain terms (a la richard feynman).

the idea of municipal nonprofit news agencies doesnt sound effective to me, particularly if the government is their primary donor. dont nonprofits kowtow to their biggest donor? out of curiosity, does pbs ever break big stories?

If you report the news in an even-handed manner, you’re only going to retain objective, open-minded people. Unfortunately, the vast majority of this country is partisan and wants to hear that they’re right. In order to get the most consistent, loyal audience, these shows are catering to those egotistical desires.

I’m pretty convinced the only way journalism is going to survive (i.e. not all go the way of the tabloid) is to set up municipal nonprofits to report the news as a civic service. As much as I would rather avoid government involvement whenever possible, looking at the effectiveness of similarly situated organizations such as PBS and the St. Petersburg Times, the model seems to work exceptionally well.

With News Corp. looking to buy out the Wall Street Journal, one wonders if how much objective news reporting will still be around in 10 years.

I see nothing wrong with “dumbing down” an issue in order to be able to talk about it on some level. Call it summarizing or abstracting a portion of it. I think most people would agree that they would prefer most things explained in layman’s terms rather than convoluted and detailed landscape specific language (like legal documents, for instance). But along with that there needs to be the realization that the issue under scrutiny probably has many more facets to it.

In the end, I think although it would be great – open, honest debates do not equal ratings, meaning they won’t happen.

You certainly have a point in why it happens, but I hope your not saying that this should be done simply because in general the target audience is uneducated, naive, or just wants to hear their ideals jacked off too. The only way to fix a problem like this, is as Kevin said to have more open, honest, and objective debate in all areas of life.

Except modern pop culture. Good lord does that shit suck. I truly believe shitty music, TV and movies are responsible for the large degrees of apathy and general sedation of society, resulting in quick talking point debates like the one’s kevin is describing.

I think the main problem with most of the hotly debated issues is twofold. On one hand, you have the issues that are too complex for people to understand – how many people can accurately and succinctly describe partial birth abortion? The second is that they may not be as complex, but would take an entire semester of a college course to cover – the affect of Capitalism on American Society, all the nuances of the new Immigration Bill. So the hosts do what they know how – they dumb down the issues, ignore key parts, and pick out a few areas to argue for/against regardless of the points anyone else makes.