Their roles are identical--boosting the profiles of certain political/media "stars", and tearing down that of others. Who the former and latter will be is determined by whoever owns them. Right now the right "owns" publications such as The Politico and Wash Times, and many MSM "journalists" who work for more established and "legitimate" outlets, and so gets to determine how the news and characterization of the various political players is spun. Thus Bartlett is a "truth-teller" and "good guy", and Gore is a "screed-writer" and "Bush hater".

Not all journalists and pundits play this game--Waas, Scheer, Priest, Hersh, Rich, Krugman, Moyers certainly don't--but most of them do, to one extent or another. Some deliberately and openly--e.g. Allen, Vandehei, O'Donnell, Malveaux, Russert--and some more subtly and insidiously--e.g. Couric, Ifill, Tweety, Wolfe, Fineman.

But most of them do it, whether it's because they genuinely like and believe in these Repubs, are trying to advance and/or protect their careers, are doing what their bosses tell them to do, or are simply too stupid and lazy to see through the bullshit (and I wouldn't underestimate the role that this latter reason plays in today's media). It's an obsequious, careerist, lazy, gutless, shameless, insubstantive, gossipy, short attention span, sound bite-based media climate in which they operate. And their work speaks for itself.

All of which points Gore appears to address in his new book (I haven't read it yet), and which of course he is now being attacked for having made, not on the merits of his arguments, but on his "screed-like hatred of Bush" (see Digby's recent post on Gwen Ifill's hit job interview of Gore on the New Hour this week, or just read the online transcript to avoid the risk of vomiting).

Versailles Media, obsequious courtiers all.