Informed or Uninformed ?

I'm back on how we read stuff.  I've already written about how I need to remind myself that reading scripture, for me as a Christian is a potentially dangerous thing, and something I need to do carefully.

I've read a couple of things in the last week about bloggers and journalists and particularly the future of news reporting.

In the Church Times (8th May 2009) Andrew Brown writes in his column that none of our national papers has a reporter at the Anglican Consultative Council meeting in Jamaica.  He makes the point that if there are no journalists there, the only reports that we will get are heavily biased.  Maybe some of us would say that no news reporting is unbiased, nothing is truly objective, but we do hope that our media reporters are at least attempting to give us a fair account.

In a piece on the radio yesterday, I was listening to a conversation about the future of newspapers in the internet age, and the down turn in advertising revenue for newspapers.  If the cover price does not make for a profitable business, and advertising revenue continues to fall, does the printed press have a future ?

In his piece on 1st May, Andrew Brown writes about informed and uninformed opinion.  Brown comments on another columnist, Timothy Garton Ash: He is well informed.  "His views are worth having because he knows more than  his readers about the subjects on which he writes.  There will be of course, some readers who know more than he does, but they won't think he's writing from another planet"

Garton Ash - "I can look through a hundred comments, and only two will tell me anything I don't know;  that's because they will have links"

Some blogs are well informed and worth reading.  I have a couple that I look at.  But uninformed opinion is pretty worthless.  I pray that I will be able to tell the difference between the two, and that informed opinion continues to have a place.