Online Reporting of the Iraq War

The reserve reading for this week highlighted the dramatic spike in the number people going online to get their news about the situation in Iraq. Allen noted several reasons for this, including the immediacy of information, the chance to be exposed to a wider range of opinions, and the ability to comment on what was read. The relatively recent advent of broadband internet service, which gives individuals the ability to watch live streaming video, was also cited as a reason for this rise.
The vast majority of Americans get their news from television. It's difficult for CNN or MSNBC to give in-depth coverage of a story that has to be presented in 30 second clips for an American populace with an attention span the size of a pea. Rather than report on the entire length and breadth of an issue, only a brief overview can be given which results in the illusion of an informed citizenry, who in truth merely get headlines without any understanding of the context or nuance of a story. With an event as controversial as the Iraq War, many felt that they needed more than just headlines, especially if one of their loved ones was in the service. So they went online to expand their understanding of the situation.
While the news channels do ultimately inform, albeit minimally, it is often forgotten that their primary goal is to make money for the parent company. Unpopular or controversial stories and opinions are often avoided in favor of "safe" stories or pop culture crap that will keep the audience tuned in. CNN is perceived as having a liberal bent, FOX is conservative, and MSNBC just sucks. But despite small differences in the spin of a story (ie. "NSA domestic spying" vs. "terrorist surveillance program") all of the channels say pretty much the same thing. And when they do have a "debate" on a controversial issue, it's always a matchup like, "Today we have former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger here to talk about why the government is telling the truth about Iran vs. Some cock-eyed intern with a lisp to give the tin-foil hat conspiracy theory about a vast right-wing cabal bent on world domination." It's never an honest and open debate, and it become readily obvious that the news media as a whole are pushing a certain viewpoint and ideology.
In order to be exposed to differing viewpoints is one of the main reasons people go online for their news. During the run-up to the Iraq War, television news didn't bother to do any investigative reporting. If Bush said that Saddam had WMDs, it was taken as fact. Uranium from Niger, fact. Saddam hiding under your bed waiting to get you when you fell asleep, fact. (ok, so I made that last one up) My point is, TV news reported all of this as fact, and in the end it all was fiction. All the networks were apparently duped by a guy who says "nookular." I think trust waned for TV journalism. People wanted to know what was really happening. So they went online in order to get a broader perspective on the issues.