It's been a week for media meltdowns. Thursday Rachel Maddow went on a rant on her show on MSNBC declaring the Democrats' response to the Anthony Weiner scandal and subsequent resignation "damaging the Democrats for a generation". She was furious about the Democratic response in particular, listing every Republican and Democratic representative that, though guilty of more egregious ethics violations than "Weinergate", retain their seat on Capitol Hill.

     Another show on MSNBC, Morning Joe, host Joe Scarborough went on his own impulsive tear regarding recent comments by Newt Gingrich. Co-host Mika Brzezinski reported on a recent speech by Gingrich, who reportedly said that President Obama stood for "the opposite of freedom". This induced a mouth-filled indignant sermon by Joe Scarborough in which, amid flying crumbs of breakfast bun, he asked viewers to keep score with Obama’s policies and ended with, “The opposite of freedom would be, oh, I don’t know, Ghaddafi!” Over the delighted laughter of his co-host he railed to Gingrich, “Why can’t you just say I disagree with his viewpoints? Instead of bringing up Stalin or Hitler…why does he have to say stupid things like that?”

     The context of these two MSNBC commentators’ left-leaning outbursts is made more interesting when considered next to the interview this morning of Jon Stewart by Fox News’ Chris Wallace. Appropriately enough, the topic of the interview was a debate over media bias. Stewart accused MSNBC of attempting to adopt the business model of Fox News, actively promoting political bias as a method of attracting a loyal viewership. Stewart accuses mainstream media of “sensationalism, conflict, and laziness”, saying that 24-hour news outlets were made for 9-11, and in lieu of anything as ground-breaking as that, must dress-up banality as worthy of round-the-clock coverage. The result of this perversion of the news cycle is that viewers are disgusted by it, preferring instead place stock in “fake news” or “entertainment news” like The Daily Show, and The Colbert Report. Sound point, Jon.

     Here’s another way of looking at it: your choices are politically-biased propaganda, sensationalized mediocrity, or satire of the previous two. Wherein lies the real story? Where, in this buffet of self-aggrandizing excrement do we find out what really happened? No spin, no soundbites, no “seasoning” for the American palate? Frankly, you won’t find it in the mainstream media, or even the affiliates.

     The issue here is the battle for control over the national narrative. If we look at political races (I hear we have a big one coming up soon), we see a carefully articulated presentation of political discourse by Fox News; lots of selective editing, and spinning (listening Mr. O’Reilly?), supplemented by a phalanx of indoctrinated pundits, bloggers, and assorted talking heads. On the other hand, CNN, NBC, ABC, and other assorted nationally televised acronyms do the exact same thing! However, where Fox attempts to formulate a viewpoint, these guys simply page-splash and hope it ramps up ratings (call it the garden-hose method of reporting). That’s where MSNBC seems to have developed a strategic plan: if Fox has built a viewing base by pandering to conservatives, MSNBC will do it by selling a liberal ideology. After it all, and as much as they like to separate themselves from it, entertainment news scavenges off the 24-hour news cycle backs like tick birds on a rhino.  Ultimately, everyone commanding millions of viewers’ attention is now absolved of demonstrating any onjectivity or journalistic integrity.

     Ironically, in the Information Age a person needs to work harder to find it (the credible kind, in any case). As with many industries that have commercialized themselves into obsolescence, the internet may save news. Granted, the internet is a scary unregulated place, but if you dig deep enough and research thoroughly enough, you can uncover the nugget of essential truth behind any story. Fortunately for those of us with jobs and families, there are some places you can go to get real news without bias, without contrivance, and without the work.

     If your interests are purely political, check the Pulitzer-Prize winning PolitiFact.com. PolitiFact checks statements by politicians, pundits, and other pontificators for accuracy and truth (they have a gimmicky truth-o-meter, which sounds far too much like a Fox News toy), and offer a rating of "True" through "Pants-on-Fire". Though PolitiFact has come under fire (almost entirely from Republicans that feel unfairly represented in the sites inquiries), for the bias in which they investigate statements, the site remains one of the most purely journalistic watchdogs on the web.

     If your interest is finding out what is truly newsworthy, check out The Week Magazine, online or in print. The Week takes headlines from news outlets all over the world, and compiles them into short, objective write-ups in a weekly publication. Easily digestible, glossy, objective, and cheap (about $20); perfect for the American consumer.

     Finally, if you need in-depth reportage but can’t get a fair take, sometimes one is forced to think outside the box, or in this case, outside the country. Think about it, other nations don’t have the same kind of political and ideological allegiances that organizations within the country do. Now, you do need to understand that there may be some nationalistic bias or discrimination inherent in international news outlets, and many of the largest ones are actually owned by American corporations. However, if you want a bird’s eye viewpoint, it may mean crawling on top of the heap to get it. Al Jazeera, depending on the subject, can provide balanced reportage. If you’re queasy about a station allegedly linked to terrorist organizations (which isn’t true, by the way), the BBC is a good place to start. Britain’s public broadcasting channel maintains quality reporting on plenty of world-wide topics and even cover quite a bit of our own American sensationalism, but they at least call it what it is.

     There was a time when yellow journalism was profane to reporters, and individuals scorned sensationalism and propaganda. The news cycle of today has much more in common with William Randolph Hearst than with Woodward and Bernstein. Cannibalistic as the big business news cycle is, reporting more from one another than in spite of one another, it seems that there will not be any real clarity or comprehension to be had anytime soon. In the meantime, it will be necessary for those that want actual fair, balanced, objective information to do a little work for themselves. Forsake programs that employ bright flashy introductory sequences, interactive plasma screens, handycam shots of makeupped newscasters, or gratuitous use of hyperbole. The information is out there, we just need to find it for ourselves.