I certainly agree that microstream media has changed the way society receives their news. It is uncertain, however, if the flow of information has improved because of this digital evolution. There was certainly more material to sift through regarding Tucson through newer forms of media like Twitter and Youtube, but that does not mean that a higher quality picture was produced as a result. If a person takes a video a block away from a shooting showing jammed traffic and enthusiastically touts their eagerness to place the video on Facebook it does little in the way of establishing understanding.

What all these new outlets achieve is the rapid spread of news. Something that would have took hours to get across the country at the advent of broadcast news now reaches the webpages of Twitter within 15 minutes, which is quite amazing.

There was not much—if anything—missing from the news coverage of Tucson, but drab news anchors often cause me as much anger as violent events. As one watches Walter Cronkite get choked up over the assassination of JFK you can’t help but be humbled. The attractive anchors filling the cable television shows can seem as detached from daily acts of violent as Americans are from the two major wars currently taking place overseas. No anchor is a revered today as Cronkite was in the 1960s and 1970s. People certainly have their “anchors,” but talking heads garner much more attention then legitimate anchors.