There are two possible main responses to a situation like the above -regulate or educate: We prefer the latter but unfortunately it is generally honoured in the breach and the former can easily slip into overt censorship.

We prefer education would be the best and most honourable approach although suspect that in most so-called democracies there would be major upheavals were the electorate to be even half way devoted to fair play, accuracy and decency as well as reasonably educated and informed.
We can only suggest that, destructive though it is in a sense, every news story or opinion should always be approached with a few questions in mind-Who benefits from this? Why has it come out? Why now? Does it fit with known information and seem correct? Is this source generally reliable?

They won't always provide the correct answer but they will improve the strike rate (and if asked rigorously enough might have led CBS to hold off its broadcast).

In the case of anything from Limbaugh and most partisan radio hosts, Matt Drudge, et al, the only sensible approach to us is to treat the information as gossip or tainted by bigotry. This may at times be unfair to individuals but it's probably a better working guide than believing a word they say unless substantiated from other sources.

In addition, we would note, cynical that it may seem, that far too often despite the platitudes emanating from sources such as the Federal Communications Commission about diversity, very often all information other than local - and often the local information as well - in most mainstream media is a compilation of information from two prime sources the Associated Press and Reuters, rather than a product of original reporting.

The Internet is an invaluable resource for checking further but far too often those posting information or opinions hide their bias with weasel descriptions or have no track record and the search engines tend to narrow rather than widen the range of sources for most people, who simply don't have the time to track things down.
.

All the above leads us to the conclusion that education about the media and information is highly desirable and not the soft option so regularly decried by pundits when commenting about education.

Indeed were they to think a little wider and read even skimpily about various financial and political scandals that might well have been cut short had there been more glare of publicity, we think they would find it difficult to argue against media education although they could well make valid comments about the need being more in the early school years as opposed to degree level courses.

If nothing else it might kill some of the wackier conspiracy theories that make the round and make some radio hosts figures to poke fun at rather than take seriously.

We also think, however, that the public have to take a large share of the blame, not just whine about standards. If people didn't buy some of the more misogynistic rap recordings, the artists right to produce them is not infringed but their effect is significantly reduced.

Similarly if rather than getting over upset at a brief flash of a breast and covered nipple, the US public had got sufficiently excised about some of the scurrilous attacks on John McCain during his presidential bid four years ago, we suggest the message might have gone out that such tactics were counterproductive rather than that they work - something that we think would have been to the long-term benefit of US democracy and US society.

As it is, the reverse message has gone out, the dirty tricks and emphasis on the negative continue to be seen as likely to be successful, and everyone pays through poor decisions made because the knowledgeable know there are shades of grey and thus deliver more complicated choices whilst the ranters go for black and white which is must easier to grasp but frequently leads to more severe problems down the road.