You might, but I think most of the evidence suggests that not very many people would. Stuff about Michael Jackson and Mark Sanford dominates the headlines because that's what gets the most traffic.

I mean look, there are websites that cover technical subject in great detail. There are plenty of in-depth analyses of Waxman-Markey in the blogosphere, including some that are reasonably well-written and accessible. But those kinds of blogs tend to be read by the same small minority that reads this blog. The rest of the world is interested in other things.

So it's not that the content isn't available. It's that it doesn't get prominently featured by mainstream media outlets. But I don't think this is because of some kind of global conspiracy to dumb down the public; the public really is just that dumb, and media outlets are responding to audience demand.

You might, but I think most of the evidence suggests that not very many people would. Stuff about Michael Jackson and Mark Sanford dominates the headlines because that's what gets the most traffic.

I mean look, there are websites that cover technical subject in great detail. There are plenty of in-depth analyses of Waxman-Markey in the blogosphere, including some that are reasonably well-written and accessible. But those kinds of blogs tend to be read by the same small minority that reads this blog. The rest of the world is interested in other things.

So it's not that the content isn't available. It's that it doesn't get prominently featured by mainstream media outlets. But I don't think this is because of some kind of global conspiracy to dumb down the public; the public really is just that dumb, and media outlets are responding to audience demand.

You might, but I think most of the evidence suggests that not very many people would. Stuff about Michael Jackson and Mark Sanford dominates the headlines because that's what gets the most traffic.

I mean look, there are websites that cover technical subject in great detail. There are plenty of in-depth analyses of Waxman-Markey in the blogosphere, including some that are reasonably well-written and accessible. But those kinds of blogs tend to be read by the same small minority that reads this blog. The rest of the world is interested in other things.

So it's not that the content isn't available. It's that it doesn't get prominently featured by mainstream media outlets. But I don't think this is because of some kind of global conspiracy to dumb down the public; the public really is just that dumb, and media outlets are responding to audience demand.

You find an article here or there, but these issues should be dominating the news, not needles in the haystack.

According to Pew, in the 24 hours prior to Waxman-Markey passing the House, “60% of the news coverage studied across 55 different news outlets was devoted to [Michael] Jackson's death.” They earn a quick ratings hit, but ultimately that audience drifts back to People and TMZ and all the other entertainment news outlets. Meanwhile, people interested in hard news get fed up and desert the traditional press because of all the fluff.

There is not a surplus of news. There is a surplus of horse race journalism. There is surplus of articles that talk about the chances of legislation passing but never explore what the legislation does. There's lots of anonymous quotes from insiders pushing their agenda. And there's endless speculation from pundits anchored in their own wishful thinking instead of hard evidence. And there's no accountability for getting it wrong: on the economy, on the housing bubble, on Iraq, on torture, or on any other issue.

I'd buy a newspaper that reported substance over he said/she said stenography mixed with tabloid fluff. I read the Wall Street Journal for a decade before their 2007 redesign dumbed down the newspaper. There is a niche there to fill, if any newspaper is interested in filling it.