Here's Obama in a recent interview about the state of journalism: "I am concerned that if the direction of the news is all blogosphere, all opinions, with no serious fact-checking, no serious attempts to put stories in context, that what you will end up getting is people shouting at each other across the void but not a lot of mutual understanding."

Would it be considered ironic that blogs and online news outlets then proceeded to take him out of context and start shouting at each other across the void? Or is that too expected?

When Obama was asked what he thought about a bill introduced in the Senate that would allow newspaper companies to restructure as nonprofits with a variety of tax breaks, he responded, "I haven't seen detailed proposals yet, but I'll be happy to look at them."

The headline being used everywhere from the Drudgereport to Huffingtonpost: Obama Open to Newspaper Bailouts. Being open to looking at a proposal isn't really the same as being open to the proposal. Out of context: Check.

From that out-of-context headline the story has devolved into accusations about more big government bailouts and a socialist takeover of the media, followed by the usual frothing. Again, based on a willingness to read legislation. So, shouting across the void: Check.

Journalism is dying, and we really need to have a discussion about the media's future. Should consumers start paying for online content? Can a nonprofit news organization maintain its independence and stay afloat? Etc.

But how do you have that conversation when there's no medium for mutual understanding and honest debate?