I’m a pretty regular reader of James Lilek’s column. He divides his time between descriptions of his relative routine life, which I guess substitute for soap operas for me, and rants against whatever comes along, primarily politics. He’s right-wing, so I rarely agree with him, but he writes well so it’s generally worth my time. Today, tuning in to read his opinion of the debate, I find this:

” So Osama is using our invasion of Iraq to recruit new troops? First of all, you know this how? We have a tape of OBL holding up a copy of 2004 TV Guide Fall Season edition to verify the date, declaring a new and improved jihad?”

I’m stuck as to how to respond; is there any doubt, any reason, any conceivable way that Osama (or Al-Qaeda if he’s dead) is not using the war for recruiting?

I watched Charlie Rose’s interview with Jon Stewart, of Comedy Central’s Daily Show fame, last night*. I have to agree with the Television Critics Association, which awarded the Daily Show the prize for outstanding news and information programming in July, over such rivals as Nightline. And now I’m even more impressed, because one of the points Stewart stressed during the interview is best summed up by an excerpt from his show (text here. His idea was that news organizations should try to move away from the “He said, she said” style they’ve adopted, and instead try to, wait for it, inform their viewers.

It’s a complex idea, I know, but stay with it. He was suggesting that an experienced anchor, backed perhaps by a team of experts hard-wired to the Internet, could mediate on discussions. So when a Democrat and a Republican are debating and the Democrat says “the average new job under Bush is worth $9,000 less” or the Republican says “Kerry didn’t earn those medals” the anchor would challenge the assertion, rather than just tossing the ball over to the other side in what passes for a debate (clue: actually debating involves listening, rather than just waiting for your turn to speak).

Of course there is some danger of the anchor’s views coming in to play. The idea would be to challenge things that are wrong, and query things that are debateable. For example:

• “Kerry is a traitor” – Wrong.
• “Bush thinks the war is unwinnable” – Well, there’s something there, but you’ll need to explain yourself.
• “Lowering taxes increases tax revenues” – OK, there’s a theory, let’s keep talking.

See how refreshing that was? It’s something that newspapers often do very well, but in today’s society newspapers just aren’t that important. That is a subject worthy of its own diatribe of course.

(*The joy of TiVo – I have no idea when it was on)