As anyone who's worked for an organization of any size knows all too well, a culture of conformity to the norms, mores and expectations of that organization generally pervades it and everyone is expected to play along, to one extent or another, depending on their role, reputation and power there. This is just as true of a law firm, charitable foundation, energy company of news organization. All organizations have certain goals, philosophies, attitudes and MO's, and ones ability to survive and thrive in them is often in direct proportion to one's willingness and ability to internalize and conform to these. It's a simple and unfortunate realize of working for any organization that consists of more than a few people.

And I think that to a large extent, that's what's happening with today's MSM. Most of its journalists just want to keep their jobs and advance their careers, and will do whatever it takes or is expected of them to do that. And if that means feeding off of the "Dems are weak and effeminate" meme, then that's what they'll do. It's not personal or ideological. It's purely business, a matter of professional expediency. The banality of evil, as the first commenter adeptly pointed out. They don't MEAN to lie, smear and distort. They just do it because it's expected of them, whether explicitely or implicitely.

Take one example of a journalist whom I used to like and respect but who's turned out to be a huge disappointment to me lately, Andrea Koppel. She's Ted's daughter, smart, well-educated, sophisticated (she speaks Mandarin fluently), and when she covered the State Department I thought she did a good job (although, honestly, I didn't pay her coverage THAT much attention, and was often more interested in her looks than her words, I will sheepishly admit).

But since she was transferred to the congressional beat, she's been relentless in beating the "Dems in disarray" meme to death--something that her fellow congressional beat reporter, Dana Bash, excelled at. She's clearly trying to fit the facts to a predetermined narrative, one that her superiors at CNN appear to have decided was the one that they'd try to sell, be it for perceived ratings and/or to cozy up to the administration.

I don't think that it's ideological. To me, it seems like she's just looking out for and trying to advance her career. That doesn't make it any better, just different. (Although, I do detect a certain disturbing sunny glee in her distorted smears of Dems that I find a bit troubling--what did Dems DO to them over the years to make them hate them so much?)

These are not serious, ethical, trustworthy people, who can be relied upon to deliver relevant, substantive and reasonably unbiased news without spin or ulterior motive. They are delivering predetermined spin posing as news, as fits their bosses' and organizations' biases and organizational and ideological objectives. Guns for hire, basically, doing their bosses' bidding. Neither right or left, just dishonest and dishonorable. Which is actually worse, I think.

And btw, from this online chat it's clear to me that from both his demeanor and words that Smith is a snotty little condescending shit who is clearly looking to protect and advance his career and could care less about something as boring and irrelevant as the "truth". We've all met and known the type in our lives and work, and know what they're all about. They're not the enemy--they just enable them.