We’ve come a long way since the days when the news arrived on foot, and in recent years a bad way.

Micheal S. Parkhurst | October 6, 2026

Once upon a time, when people lived in small towns, the news arrived on foot.

First came the traveling minstrels, who carried word from village to village at the speed of their own walking or the pace of a horse.  The minstrel was more than a messenger; he was the one who gathered the news and edited it for the listening pleasure of his audience.  Because he traveled so slowly, word could take weeks to cross a country, and because a single man could hold only so much in his memory, the volume stayed small.  Trivial or unimportant matters were screened out quickly.  Then came the town crier, who stood in the square and made the announcements, though someone else still gathered and shaped what he read aloud.

The printing press changed everything.  Now nothing had to be memorized at all; the crier made his announcements while another man gathered and edited the content.  Once enough people could read for themselves and the cost of printing had fallen far enough, the newspapers took over, and for the first time, the sources of news competed with for an audience.  Carried by horseback, that day’s events could reach even remote villages from dozens of miles away, and national news could be had within a few days.  What everyone took for granted was that the gathering of it was both truthful and accurate — and in the minstrel’s day, that trust was earned plainly, for other travelers could verify a story, and the minstrel himself had to appear trustworthy or lose his welcome.

Radio and,........

© American Thinker