Glenn:

We're both in agreement about the facts, but approaching the material from different directions, we have different points to make. Thus, it's certainly true when you say:

Even if EVERY fact -- Facts X, Y and Z -- happen to promote the Democratic view, that is STILL nonpartisan reporting. When I say that media criticisms are NOT based on a desire for their reporting to be "partisan," but merely objective and factual, the fact that such reporting will end up helping Democrats mostly or even exclusively doesn't make the reporting any less non-partisan.

But my point is that something rather unusual is going on here--that truth has been turned into a political negative. And thus, the fact that one party is much more often, and much more consistently reality-based has been turned into a liability for it (whereas normally we would expect that to be an advantage). And just one of the liabitilities is that reality-based criticism of a heavily-biased media can be reflexively discounted as "partisan."

As a result, if reality-based criticism is automatically rejected, then what, exactly are we left with? Well, of course, we are left with what our insider peers (aka "Versailles") regard as "interesting and worthwhile stories." The difference between this and highschool locker-room gossip is vanishingly small. (It's always "interesting and worthwhile" when the cool kids gossip about the losers. That's precisely what defines who's cool and who's a loser.)

I say "locker-room" advisedly, since so much of this gossip revolves around the issue of femiphobia which I have brought up from time to time, as described in Stephen Ducat's book, The Wimp Factor: Gender Gaps, Holy Wars, and the Politics of Anxious Masculinity. In place of a reality-based politics, we have a politics based macho posturing, which is intended purely to fake others out.

This is the real significance of Chris Matthews' adoration of Bush. It is precise because of the phoniness of Bush's posturing that Matthews worships Bush. Just as it is precisely because of Kerry's genuine heroism in Vietnam that he had to be taken down. To do otherwise would be to give a toehold to reality-based politics. If you start with recognizing who the real war heroes are, pretty soon you will talking about the real reasons that the wars were started, and the real reasons they were won or lost.

Liberals and Democrats are so deeply embedded in a reality-based worldview that they fail to understand what's going on here. They think it's about being a macho war hero. But that's simply irrelevant. It's about acting the part. And frankly, being a real war hero can be a real liability when it comes to acting like one. Too much awareness of nuance--of how scared even the most heroic are, of how the most heroic are those who don't come home, and so on--just gets in the way of John Wayne-style, black-and-white acting heroic.

This is, ironically, the right's real weak point. Because genuine heroism is something that moderates and independents can respond to--just as phony heroics can turn them off. And once this reality-based tipping point has been stumbled over, Katie bar the door. This is, in a sense, precisely what happened with Paul Hackett's near-miss in the Ohio-2 special election--it set a tone, sounded a theme that others picked up across the country in the mid-terms. Jim Webb's victory in Virginia is the most tangible, more high-visibility result so far. But the GOP has not backed off the macho posturing one iota. They can't afford to. Because, as I've said, once you let reality seep in there, it's virtually impossible to keep it from seeping in everywhere.

And, of course, there is no meaninigful difference between the GOP posturing and the posturing of the media that enables them. Which is precisely what your controntation with the Politico, for example, is all about.

Hume's Ghost:

My opinion is to let that one go. That'a concession to the movement. No more fairness doctrine. When movement conservatives hear "fairness doctrine" they think that its a conspiracy to take their radio demogogues off the air.

Well, it is. And what's wrong with that? In just the same way that science is a conspiracy to stop the teaching of the Bible in science classes.

I'm not making any concessions to the crypto-fascist movement. Not one.

Rolling back some of the media consolidation decisions would be a better area to focus on. In my opinion.

If you can't walk and chew gum at the same time, then politics is not for you. Better stick to something simple, like quantum physics.

A lot of people have internalized rightwing lies about the Fairness Doctrine, and Hume's Ghost is one of them:

I would also add

That the a science class teaches science. A radio show disseminates opinion. Taking guys with idiot opinion off the air by gov't decree isn't quite the same thing as taking non-science out of the classroom.

I don't think that Limbaugh and the rest of those programs should be allowed to be called "news radio" however.

You don't have to take them off the air. Just give equal time to liberals.

It ain't rocket science.

Fighting for it may be hard. But understanding it isn't.

possibly I misunderstood you.

It's simple really:

(1) They will lie about anything.

(2) They will call anything that threatens them a conspiracy.

(3) We should study, but ignore their opposition.

(4) And reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.

(5) Especially since fairness is as American as apple pie.