Too much information, not enough comprehension

     Ben Bradlee died this week. He was one of the kings of what we once knew as journalism. He made sure that two frisky young reporters got their facts right -- well, mostly right -- before he allowed them to put the credibility of the Washington Post on the line to run stories that would eventually lead to the resignation of a President.
     Like most good editors, he would send the story back to the reporters and say, "You need more facts."
    Yeah, we actually used to do that. Try to get it right.
    Now you can get your news in more ways more often from more sources than any time in history.
     But that doesn't mean you will be any better informed. In fact, you may just be more confused, because the purveyors of information have fewer gatekeepers, editors, challengers and -- in many cases, ethics -- than before.
     Anybody can write or say anything about anything or anyone at any time, all the time, any where, and not even have to put their name on it, and people will read it.
     The wilder it is, the more some will believe it, and even those who are skeptical will still pass it on with a keystroke to others on their email list.
     I liked it better when you had to sign your name -- your real name, not some fantasy tag -- to what you purport to be a statement of fact.
     As for responsibility or ethics, the only justification needed for slander or an outright lie is, "I'm entitled to my opinion."
     Of course you are, but sign your name to it.
     I'm not convinced that even that would put the genie back in the bottle in this, the Misinformation Age.
    It's bad enough to be ignorant, but it's worse to be proud of it. Ignorance plus pride is enough to begin a new political cult.
    Maybe it's just the thing for a population that seems to believe in little besides winning an argument.