I’m trying to figure out why I like Charles Gibson. I have no good reason. I know nothing about him. I never watched Good Morning America — not even once. Now, though, I find myself tuning in to ABC to catch the evening news, even though I have not been able to tolerate network news for quite some time.

Not that the other networks offer Charlie any competition. I cannot abide Katie Couric’s wrapping herself in the mantle of “serious newswoman.” That went out the window after she — with no evidence whatsoever –  blamed evangelical “hate” for the death of Matthew Shepard. The motive turned out to be cash and drugs, with Shepard a target of opportunity, a well-dressed college kid whose wallet looked like easy pickins’. That’s one Katie can never take back.

Then there’s NBC’s Brian Williams. I can’t put my finger on it, but there’s something about him that rankles. To be fair, I heard he was pretty funny when he guested on Saturday Night Live. But if I wanted my news delivered by someone who was funny on SNL, I’d pick Will Ferrell.

So that leaves Charles Gibson, who gives me the news straight, but in a pleasant way, like…oh, I don’t know…a favorite uncle? I like his easy delivery and the way he avoids that smirking irony some anchors affect. I purposely didn’t try Googling up any dirt on the guy before writing this, because I’ve only recently become curious about him.

Maybe you can tell me: Am I wrong to heart Charles Gibson?

I am not a big fan of Fox News for the same reason I’m not a big fan of most TV news.  It’s TV news.  I’m also not a fan of Fox News because they present themselves in a way that plays to the stereotype of conservatives in the minds of most liberals.  Fox News is a satire of itself, refusing to hide any conservative bias on most counts.  Yet, because I know about the bias and because they so proudly reveal it, Fox News is easier to watch than CNN or MSNBC, who so proudly pretend to be objective.  Mostly, I just read newspapers.

But Shepherd Smith, the evening anchor of Fox News, is my favorite of all news anchors, not only because we share a home state, but because he gets the joke.  He seems to appreciate that the news is mostly fluff.  He doesn’t take himself seriously, and doesn’t pretend to take the unserious stuff all that seriously.  And so, I appreciate this video of him during an interview on Fox News, where a former advisor of Al Gore tosses out some slightly prejudicial comments about Fox News.  He calls her on it, and I think he wins.

Was Brokeback Mountain actor Heath Ledger’s naked body scattered ’round with sleeping pills? Did he die in Mary-Kate Olsen’s New York apartment? No and no. But that didn’t stop certain media websites from reporting those snippets as facts. Did those sites, the New York Times notably among them, get the Ledger story wrong?

No. An NYPD spokesman got his story mixed up. But by the time he got it unmixed, reporters had already fired the “news” digitally around the world.

Such are the dangers of “speed reporting” in the Internet age, according to Editor & Publisher and a Los Angeles Times entertainment blog:

But here’s the problem…Journalists have generally had hours - not minutes or seconds - to craft a story from the blast wave of facts and factoids that comes in the wake of a bombshell. What people are seeing now is an old-fashioned process - reporting - as it unfolds in real time. If the public wants its information as raw and immediate as possible, it’ll have to get used to a few missteps along the way, and maybe even approach breaking stories with a bit of skepticism, like a good reporter would.

Conservative/liberal media bias aside, how skeptical are you of news outlets’ basic reporting of facts? Have changes in news delivery caused you to take a “wait and see” attitude about what is true and what is not? Would you prefer faulty “up to the minute” news that gets tweaked as time goes by, or that reporters verify the facts before breaking a story?

Our mistakes here at WMB (grammar, facts, theology, etc.) are never left alone by our thorough and meticulous readers. I just want to say thanks. And I also want to say thanks to the Times, who, at 6:25am (Eastern), allowed a caption on the front page of their website read: “Former Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arizona campaigned in the Black River electric co-op in Sumter, S.C. Mr. Huckabee came in third in the Michigan Republican primary.” I have no doubt that someone will be thrown into the East River for this. The image and the caption may have already been changed.

UPDATE! As of 7:15 this morning, Homer woke up.

The front page of the Times this morning has good news about Iraq.  In the print edition, there was even a picture of a wedding taking place in Baghdad (picture here - the other pictures are good, too).  What’s up with the Times?  Thanksgiving got them thinking of hearth and home, or what?  I’m worried about them and am thinking of subscribing.