Gather 'round, children, and let me tell you about the old days in TV news, when such unimpeachable sources as Walter Cronkite, David Brinkley and Edward R. Murrow delivered the day's stories with such gravitas and stone-faced impartiality that all thoughts of media bias, favoritism or slant were the province of crackpots and folks who wore tinfoil hats a large part of the time.

Over the years, as more voices were heard in the news arena, especially as first cable TV and then the Internet made it easier for those without formal journalistic training or experience to reach large audiences, the overall credibility of newscasters took many hits. The fact that Geraldo Rivera still has a career after the Capone's vault fiasco is just one shining example of where it all started to go wrong.

Political reportage has always been a minefield, with reporters who cover candidates directly almost always facing charges of either being out to "get" their subject or being a cheerleader for same. Where in the past, coverage of a presidential candidate might be limited to a few interviews, now we get entire press corps riding along on campaign buses and breaking bread daily with the subject of their stories.

So on the one hand, we've got members of the "mainstream" media clamoring for ever more access to the candidates and on occasion giving their subjects the softball treatment in exchange for that access. On the other hand, we've got candidates who seem capable of ever more doubletalk, hiding behind talking points and party lines and refusing to give a straight answer.

Watch a senator or member of the House asked a direct question, especially if that question has anything to do with taxes, and you'll see the latter phenomenon in full flower. There's one certain senator, who I'll not name, whose answers when he's asked about his stance on middle-class tax cuts are so full of obfuscation, self-contradiction and meaningless verbiage that they arouse in me the need to slam my head in a door to restore my equilibrium.

Now add to the mix the world of Web journalists, bloggers and pundits. Make no mistake: There is some superb writing going on in this world. There are some men and women who are cast in the mold of Murrow, who do their best to report the facts and let the readers make their own decisions.

These people can usually count their regular readers on the fingers of both hands.

Sadly, the folks who draw the greatest number of eyes are the ones Stephen King would call the "monster shouters," the ones who take facts, mix them with assumptions, add healthy dollops of opinion and paranoia and serve the whole dog's breakfast as the Voice of Authority. They know what's going on, brothers and sisters, and if you'll just listen to their every word they'll tell you what to think about it.

Challenge one of these new wave of nutjobs and you'll experience an Ouroborean delight previously only available to those who tried to hold conversations with the guys in bus stations holding conversations with their shoes. If you challenge their facts, you're one of the "old guard" trying to control the flow of information and keep the people from the knowing the whole truth. Challenge their opinions and you're part of the hated establishment (whatever they consider the establishment to be) trying to stifle free speech and wipe your armpits with the Bill of Rights.

And heaven forbid you challenge their writing on a strictly qualitative basis, mentioning silly things such as sentence structure, tense agreement or other similar, quaint points of that mysterious code we liberal arts types like to call "grammar." Do that and you're commenting on their parentage, insulting their ethnic heritage and spitting on the American flag all in one fell swoop.

Apparently, the message has now become more important than either the facts (or lack thereof) behind it or the precision with which it is delivered.

I'm not trying to say we all need to write like English majors. I don't. I'm not asking that opinion be completely removed from reportage, as I don't believe that's possible. All I want is some acknowledgment that there is a difference between reporting and editorializing and an effort by practitioners of one to avoid straying into the other.

Something tells me I'm whistling into the wind here, though. The bread and circuses mentality that is slowly devouring Western culture has gained a foothold in the news media, and some of the monster shouters even have their own shows on cable.

I will ask this, however: If this column has made you angry. If this column has made you feel threatened, look closely at what's got you upset. I don't pretend to be any sort of ultimate authority, but I do think I might be just smart enough to get a few of you to stop and look at your motivations and reasoning. I sure hope so.

Got a rant? Question? Comment? Spare bucket of money? Drop me a line, anytime!