The comments make more of an impression.
There isn't always going to be a need to get huffy over the watching the news as it happens - that's why I prefer C-SPAN's content. When it comes to comparing that content with how it's presented on either side, seeing the differences between those commentaries is what drives my choice of one side over another. (Repeating a brand name doesn't make it more appealing, especially in this case.) It's why I'm skeptical about the more imaginative reactions to events, and why I wonder if what's vilified doesn't have something worth considering. (If the bad guy's right, who's the good guy here?) That's not an echo - that's a choice based on available information.
And there's a difference between higher education that produces the folk currently on the front lines versus that which produces the folk with gold star-approved newscasts, K? When the people who, through their hard work and intelligence, reach positions where they are able to learn about, create, and apply new knowledge on a large scale (in the fields of technology, law, and natural sciences, for example) that's something to celebrate. When those people are bought and paid for, even (in the case of journalism) expelled, by a government whose military and foreign policy is now into targeting neighbors' sea-craft with lasers, I think it's OK to question whether those people are driven by carrot or stick. When they use the letters after their names to endanger those who listen to them, that's when veritas loses its appeal.
Lowly they may be, but I hold in higher regard cracked fingers and bunions, miso and mesh sieves and Harriet's gun, doc, than I do the stars. (How's that censorship legislation going?) But if the comments section isn't eloquent enough, and if loftier credentials make for a more appealing read, one could do worse than reading the works of one's colleagues, K?
On a brighter note, the chives are flowering.