“We become what we behold.” Words from Marshall McLuhan in 1964, and to which I would take license and add that we have become what we are told to be.

Before the pervasiveness of the media, in particular television, we put our faith in journalism, which at that time referred almost exclusively to the written word. ”Extra! Extra! Read all about it!” The newsboys, hawking their papers on the street, would cry out the headlines of the day from the newspaper for which they worked. We understood that the large, bold type on the front page related to the major story of the day - major, at least in the opinion of the publisher of the paper. That was okay. We could read it or not as we chose and we could discuss the story with family or friends if it was of sufficient interest. We were not analysts or critics and we might base our beliefs on what we considered to be solid evidence or maybe just on who had the kindest face. Simplistic? Perhaps, but we were all thinking machines in those days – some more rusty and ineffectual than others - but good, bad or indifferent, we put the little gray cells to work, as Poirot would say, and the gray cells were a reflection of our own beliefs.

Flash forward to the new world, the world where one picture is worth a thousand words but we get not only the picture, we also get the thousand words We now have the bearer of dispatches (Job 1:14), also called the messenger, from the Greek, angelos, and the Hebrew ,mal’al and synonymously in English, the intelligencer. I take issue with the derivations of the word, messenger. The individuals who have taken it upon themselves to pre-chew and digest the information which is presented to us electronically, and who then, birdlike, push into our mouths what they think we need to know in whatever form they think we can absorb, are not angels – they are not sent from on high to inform us, unless ‘on high’ refers to the political machinations of management – they are sent to bedevil us, to confuse us and to influence us and to act as thought police who tell us how to interpret what we see and hear.

Who are these messengers, these intelligencers, these gurus who have the temerity to call themselves analysts and interpreters and who are often without credentials, save having been serendipitously attached to some news media by a fortuitous event?

I can observe a political convention or listen to a speech without benefit of ad nauseum analysis more often based on opinion then of fact. I read prodigiously, as do many of my friends and family, and I don’t wait breathlessly for a TV commentator to tell me whether I liked, agreed with or disagreed with what was said. I don’t want to watch an event which is being televised and for which the armchair analysts arbitrarily pick out what I may watch. I resent having political commentary take place while I am trying to listen to a speech which I don’t consider minor and which the analysts do and so I must surf the channels to find one who respects my right to choose. A hint to my fellow sufferers – public broadcast stations are usually more respectful of their viewer’s needs.

We want to know what’s going on in the world. Report the news; televise the speeches; don’t be decision makers, just be the reporters that you are meant to be. Most of us don’t want information to be selectively revealed to us – Be straight with us or we may be tempted to deal with messengers the way kings of old did with bearers of unpleasant news.