1. The type who will always take in the news that confirms their biases. They only benefit from a narrow range of perspectives.

2. People who seek out different angles on subjects at issue. These people always benefit from additional perspectives.

Without this second set of people, no real argument can be made for media at all. The first set would be quite content with a stream of propaganda as long as it verified their biases.

The NEW MEDIA gives me access to the “unsaid” as opposed the predigested news we get from the OLD MEDIA. The OLD MEDIA does not report that two very popular presidential candidates, Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are muzzled and unable to speak at the “Presidential Debates”. General Electric does not want me to hear Kucinich talk about the nuclear storage area at Yucca Mountain so he is muzzled. During the Gonzales hearings the White House dumped 6000 pages of emails one Friday afternoon after quitting time. The Blog TPM imediatley posted all 6000 pages online so I could read what I wanted and I could then read comments from thousands of others who were reading the same emails I was. I had the originals. Give me the NEW MEDIA every time.

That's true in an objective sense, but in reality, it's not what the market at large actually wants. Average readership has trouble enough with the comparatively narrow range of perspectives offered by traditional media; they're not exactly clamoring for even more to take in, think about (as if), and potentially have their worldview challenged. The new media has not, any more than the traditional media, effected some sort of radical change in (e.g.) the political viewpoints of their readership. People seek out the new media that confirms what they already are sure about from the old media. The song remains the same.

I think the comment about Kucinich largely underscores this point.

From the Wikipedia – “Bullshit” defined: It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose

:O)