I get the majority of my news from the internet. I have heard from a lot of people who consider this unwise because most of the news is "spin" and has to be fact checked.

While this is true, these people operate under the misconception that "mainstream" media is any different. But because mainstream media is edited by people, it will ALWAYS suffer the bias of the interpreter.

Internet media is no different in this regard. But UNLIKE mainstream media, with the internet, I have the ABILITY to fact check, and it's easier not to take the information at face value. This past election year underscored this point definitively. Had I been forced to rely on TV newsmedia, I would have been exposed to an endless litany of untruths, half truths and hyperbole. I suspect it has been no different in elections past; but over a decades' reliance on the internet brought the "other sides" of the story out in a degree like no election in the past.

Yesterday was another prime example. I encountered a webpage trying to provoke the reader to outrage over provisions in the No Child Left Behind Act that required participating schools to share information on students with military recruiters. A closer examination of the FACTS; however, led me to the exact OPPOSITE response, and, in fact, a certain frustration with the blogger for wasting my time.

This set me to thinking: would my response have been the same if I had watched the same information presented on a news show, such as 20/20 or Primetime live? In truth, I think I would have been one of the more vocal critics. I value privacy and I resent government intrusions on such. I would even resent this if there weren't an opt out, and if it weren't just an open statement of a policy long held by public school systems.

The ability to fact check, however, led me to a quite different, and, I believe, more rational decision. This is, in my opinion, a perfect example of how the internet, used wisely, can lead to a better informed and more properly equipped populace.