Big Blue Owl wrote:
When you can't/won't listen objectively (because one or the other "side" is never 100% right) and just spew
So, then Olberman is not legitimate either. Both sides have these types.
But we can't define something as not being something else. Example: How do you define ice cream? Not cheeseburgers!
We've made no progress.
So, what defines legitimate? The big three (ABC, CBS, NBC) call the bloggers illegitimate by claiming that they don't check their sources or their facts. The bloggers will point right back and say, "Who checked up on Bill Burkett and the obviously forged documents used on 60 Minutes?"
Do we define it by audience size? If we do, then newspapers are out because they're losing subscribers by large numbers every year. In fact, with that definition the most legitimate broadcaster would be Rush Limbaugh.
Do we define it by how informed the audience is? According to a PEW Research study, the most informed audience in broadcast media is that of the Rush Limbaugh show.
So I doubt you want either of those definitions.
I find it an interesting subject, having watched the media revolution in the late 90's with fascination.
How do we define legitimate media?