The Internet is Changing Everything

This Seattle bridge scores 9%.


Monica was practicing with her Molecules last night. (BTW, They play the Entry on Sunday night, as the first band.) She called to tell me that the I-35W bridge over the Mississippi River collapsed. I could turn on the TV and learn more.

But, plenty of information was already on the internet. It was a top story on Google and Yahoo. The New York Times covered it nicely. The Star Tribune did a good job. Andy Sullivan soon had a story credit for Reuters and Dan Savage of Slog had his Seattle angle. My RSS feed (which mostly cares about baseball) told me that the next Twins game was canceled.

Does a network news anchor focus on getting facts right, or is it their job to make sure they look good? Harry Shearer presents audio of one network anchor, in Minneapolis , covering the bridge story, and making sure she looks good. (The clip is several minutes long. Just listen to the whole show.)

I was proud of myself for avoiding CNN and the like, as “breaking news” tends to be the speculation of people not much smarter than ourselves. For CNN or FOX, and the nation at large, it is a boilerplate story like countless tornados and plane crashes before. Wonkette validates my fears here.

The Star Tribune splashed the story all over its front pages, and seemed to cover all of the angles. This story affects me, I imagine, though I do not currently know why. I probably know somebody who knows somebody. Most Twin Cities people will fall into this category. We appreciate the coverage.

The Wall Street Journal did not deem the story important enough for my edition. I think it is better that they get the story right than be first. A truly national angle (perhaps, “our aging infrastructure” ) would require serious time and serious study to develop. That they may actually take this time makes them a good newspaper. (Yes, I ignore their editorial page. Doesn’t everyone?)
Update, Wall Street Journal, August 3: Front page, What's News Section lede: The Minneapolis bridge collapse revived the infrastructure debate. The B section headline is: Bridge Collapse Could Spur Infrastructure Fixes.

I suggest that unless you read slower than an anchorperson talks, the internet has made television news irrelevant, but not newspapers, and not Harry Shearer.