Great article Glenn, and I'm in strong agreement with your thesis. However I propose understanding the mindset of the Brooks/Ignatius/Hiatt crowd slightly differently.

They confuse policy with performance. Having spent most of their careers as actors playing pundits -- dressing the right way, parting the hair, getting the makeup applied in the green room -- they are the political equivalent of the actors in the movie "Tropic Thunder."

If we dropped Ignatius, Brooks and Hiatt into Iraq, they would be as confused as Ben Stiller, Jack Black and Robert Downey Jr.

They see the world as theatrics and politics as performance. Since Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi mock and ridicule republicans, that in and of itself is the "challenge" that they fear.

Not policy change. Policies are simply dialogue in the script. What you say doesn't matter. All that matters is you're still reading lines. "The Kid Stays in the Picture" writ political.

They don't fear political change on the issues. They fear recasting. They fear the lights coming up and their movie-set ending.

Coleman Silk in "The Human Stain" is not biracial.

The skin darkening procedure in Tropic Thunder IS explained, it's just shown very quickly -- a bottle of pigmentation is opened with Chinese writing on it right before his surgery. The impression is some illegal chemical from China was injected into Lazarus's skin -- no grafting or cork. So it is explained.

Finally, the point of Cruise in "Jew Face" is clearly counterparted by the fact that the entire platoon, except for the actor playing Alpa Chino, is either Jewish or half-Jewish. Jack Black, Robert Downey, Ben Stiller and Jay Baruchel are all partially Jewish.

Since, in a satire, the Jews get to be action heroes, it must be that the action hero (Cruise) is Jewish. The two inversions are connected.

Another central point to the false binary of reporter/blogger nonsense that Glenn rightly pillories is the basics of the meritocracy of the so-called "blogging world."

A free market is still a free market. Simply because it is digitized instead of printed doesn't change that fact that without offering "value" to the reader, a blogger is as worthless online as a magazine is in print.

Another central difference is that magazines are not solely subscriber based -- they make money through corporation ad sales, and, more subtly, through tacit ideological approval by their parent company, usually itself a megacorporation.

To claim that these influences raise, rather than compromise, the credibility of a magazine or another area of the so-called "mainstream media" is laughable.

The meritocracy of the internet is the purest form of filter, and lacks the compromise of someone writing on AT&T's illegal activities in Time Magazine with an editor worried about losing the full page AT&T ad on page 62.

Speaking to your point that the traditional media worships tactics and "victory" over and above any analysis of truth, fact or integrity, I was watching "Morning Joe" yesterday on that bastion of liberalism, MSNBC. Scarborough held a ten minute discussion on the "tactic" of endlessly bringing up William Ayers, concluding McCain didn't do it at the debate because it was a bad strategy.

At no point were facts introduced. At no point was the issue of honesty or integrity brought up.

To the craven traditional media, lying is simply another tool in the arsenal, and the only factor that determines what a politician should do is whether or not it will work.

This also explains why frauds and criminals like Olliver North, G. Gordon Liddy, Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove are treated with respect by the traditional media.

Glenn, this is an excellent post and a valid point, but Jebus man, do you have to rain on our parade right now?

Baby steps.

Yes, Biden is buying into the horrible military mindset and authoritarian framing. But think of it as a "dig" against the authoritarians. That they get what they wished for, and now Obama will have that power.

I agree we need to strip back the role of the president to that of our servant and not our King/ruler, but how realistic is that? We're a nation of 300+ million, not the 3-4 million when the Constitution was written.

Every large nation on earth has had a powerful leader. Humans instinctively crave a King/Ruler. The President, for the forseeable future, will be that Ruler, and there's not much we can do to walk that concept back to what it was originally supposed to mean.

We should encourage Congress, the media, and the Judiciary to do their jobs and check that power. That's why your blog is so vital.

But I can't see any reality where we strip back the concept of the President itself to merely a public servant.

The fears of the Founding Fathers have been realized, yes. We have a King/President. But thankfully, their checks and balances are still in place. Bush still has to vacate on January 20th. There is much to feel cheerful about.

Best post you've ever written, Glenn. Don't think for a moment that change has come to the media with the election of Barack Obama. The petty, insipid and outright false narratives will continue as ridiculous as ever.

The only good news is many Americans have wised up to the propaganda machine of Fox News, talk radio, and many of the bobbleheads on T.V.

Our hope is that they become more and more insular until the "sober, serious" frauds on Meet the Press have the relevancy of Jay Leno.

I think Obama intuits this (thus his cutting off the nonsensical question from the reporter yesterday that caused the Drudgebots to freak out).

Ironically we've brought change to Washington, but have yet to bring change to the media. It's just as important, and that's where you come in, Glenn.