By Dave Andrusko

Part Two is a delightful story about pro-life youth in Rhode Island. Please send comments on either Part One or Part Two to daveandrusko@gmail.com. If you'd like, follow me on www.twitter.com/daveha.

"The public's assessment of the accuracy of news stories is now at its lowest level in more than two decades of Pew Research surveys, and Americans' views of media bias and independence now match previous lows. Just 29% of Americans say that news organizations generally get the facts straight, while 63% say that news stories are often inaccurate."
     From "Press Accuracy Rating Hits Two Decade Low," from the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, published this week.

"Every institution that doesn't understand that the technology is finally here to allow people to reject what they're being given and demand what they want had better start paying attention. The revolution comes for you next."
     From "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised: Democracy, the Internet, and the Overthrow of Everything," by Joe Trippi.

"His [President Obama's] incessant talking cannot combat what it has caused: An increasing number of Americans do not believe that he believes what he says."
     From George Will's September 15 column in Newsweek.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Okay, okay, I concede that the preceding quotes are not exactly state secrets. The public, which has grown increasingly skeptical of the "media," seems to be approaching a full-fledged flight at the same time President Obama, seemingly ubiquitous, offers ever-changing rationales for his policies.

Pro-abortion President Barack Obama and pro-abortion HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius

The public's mounting disenchantment with news organizations starts but by no means end with the belief that increasingly they don't get their facts straight. In addition, "[O]nly about a quarter (26%) now say that news organizations are careful that their reporting is not politically biased, compared with 60% who say news organizations are politically biased," Pew reported. "And the percentages saying that news organizations are independent of powerful people and organizations (20%) or are willing to admit their mistakes (21%) now also match all-time lows."

The Associate Press chimed in, in its story about the report (based on a survey of 1,506 adults) that, "The findings indicate U.S. newspapers and broadcasters could be alienating the audiences they are struggling to keep as they try to survive financial turmoil."

As noted above, "Just 29% of Americans say that news organizations generally get the facts straight, while 63% say that news stories are often inaccurate." In 1985, Pew's first survey found that "55% said news stories were accurate while 34% said they were inaccurate."

What does this have to do with Joe Trippi's over-the-top but intriguing comment, or the implication of George Will's column that the more Obama speaks, the less people believe him? Glad you asked.

Trippi believes the Internet is the great leveler, an antidote to a system run top down by those who would "horde" information--first and foremost television. Because of the Internet, you and I no longer have to rely on the established news organizations to tell us the truth, or wait for them to acknowledge organizations and Movements they do not approve of. According to Pew the Internet is second only to television (and ahead of newspapers) as a source of information on local, national, and international news.

Will's critique of Obama is devastating. Most of the issues that Will uses to illustrate the shifting rhetoric (and justifications) that Obama employs are not our concerns, as single-issue pro-lifers.

But the principle is spot on, whether it is the threat of rationing or the promise of turbo-charging the Abortion Industry's financial engine: Obama's justifications are "slippery" (Will) or incoherent (my description).

There was a fascinating piece in yesterday's Washington Times that is helpful in this context. The subject matter was not abortion, but the gist of the op-ed was that you really can't accuse someone of not telling the whole and unvarnished truth when they say "x,y, z" if they don't themselves have a specific proposal on the table. But the truth is they may be using the words in a manner that is highly misleading.

For example, take the comments made Sunday on "This Week" by HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. Host George Stephanopoulos summarized Sebelius as saying "that no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions." This gets tricky, so please stay with me.

The question is, are Obama and Sebelius using the words "federal funds" in the way that the term is used in law and throughout the government? When we remember what Obama has said in the past (and to whom) and then recall how carefully he has feinted in a direction that allows reporters who want to bolster Obama to write helpful stories, we are deeply skeptical.

Going back to the Pew results one last time, there are lots of ways reporters can be inaccurate and used for partisan purposes other than getting the date wrong and outwardly shilling for one party. And for the last year and a half in particular, we've seen example after depressing example.

No wonder the public's trust in news organizations is on the wane.

Part Two