Scott Peterson was sentenced to death today. He probably deserves to die, at least if anyone of us can really say that about another one of us. He almost certainly killed his wife, the strongest evidence of which was his utter lack of emotional response to her and his son's death. His nearly inconceivable callousness during the search for Laci and the baby Conner certainly does little to give us any "reasonable doubt".

And yet, when Nancy Grace of CourtTV does her slow, sad daily disintegration routine and leaves absolutely no doubt as to how she feels about the case and his guilt, I shudder. Frankly, I don't care what her opinion is. Giving me her opinion is not her job, or at least, it shouldn't be. Once upon a time, newscasters just told us what was happening and let us figure out what was right and wrong. Not anymore. Bill O'Reilly and his ilk have really taken over the airwaves, and I suppose it's partly because that's what people want.

But it's not what I want.

Allowing a TV newscaster to tell you how you should think strikes me as the heighth of laziness. In so doing, you are abrogating all your responsibility for free thought and analysis. Why bother thinking on your own when you've got someone else who is willing and able to do it for you? The implications of this practice are truly chilling. Should teachers start indoctrinating their students into their own personal philosophies, rather than simply instructing them and allowing them to form their own opinions? My guess is that the same people who cheer the new breed of newscaster are the same people who would be enraged if teachers did the same.

I know that the argument for this practice is that if you present a "fair and balanced" view of things (whatever that really means) you will get vigorous debate and opinions on both sides and that somewhere in the middle lies the truth. But that's a little simplistic. What about those occasions where the truth ISN'T in the middle? Isn't presuming that this kind of philosophical recipe just as arrogant as positing one opinion as gospel? For me, both presume a lack of depth on the part of their audience, and a corresponding superior intellect on the part of the newscasters, often based on little more than access to millions of people via satellite hookup.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, even Nancy Grace and her frightening, obviously very personal vendetta against violent criminals (or more accurately, anyone ACCUSED of being a violent criminal). I just resent the type of patrician bullying that results when those with power and technological access use that inequity to try to enforce those opinions, or at the very least, drown out those of others.

Peterson is a sociopath, but not because Nancy Grace tells me so. I figured that out all on my own.