The job of Howard Kurtz as the "media critic" for The Washington Post and CNN is to shed light on how our media functions.

Well, no. That’s how Kurtz should view his job.

His job, as he views it, is to appear “moderate” and balanced while defending and promoting neo-con and Republican talking points – a “job” best done under the cover of “bi-partisanship.”

There is no equivalence here. Only one side completely makes stuff up. This is the distinction that Kurtz ignores, and by doing so, demonstrates his political loyalties.

Drudge, Limbaugh, Malkin and Fox News routinely make up “smears” out of absolutely nothing (like the recent “Nascar smear”) and Howard Kurtz response is to ignore them.

He only weighs in on a “smear” when he can find some sort of (false) equivalence and say, “see, the Democrats do the same thing.” It’s the journalistic equivalent of “Clinton did it too” – a rather reflexive support of the GOP under the cover of a Broderesque Bi-Partisan Beltway mentality.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-johnson/new-republican-nascar-s_b_68320.html

This is why people who get their news primarily from Fox will inevitably be misled about most issues and, far more significantly, why reporters who recite GOP talking points on these issues equally mislead their own readers and viewers. ~GG

But isn’t this why people tune into Fox News? Don’t they want to be misled?

In my experience, people who watch Fox do so to reinforce their worldview. They tune in not to find out about an “issue” but to learn what the GOP talking points on that “issue” are. And, in those terms, Fox News delivers.

They wanted “proof” that getting warrants is dangerous and only helps the terrorists. Fox provides the narrative for their distorted world, and it doesn’t confuse them with reality or facts.

These fantasies are exactly what they want.

By definition, our Beltway establishment does not believe in the rule of law -- at least not for them. They are creating a completely segregated, two-track system where high Beltway officials and their corporate enablers arrogate unto themselves the power to decide when they can break the law. ~GG

When Glenn described this two-track system where our “high Beltway officials” decide who can break the law and who can’t, I couldn’t help but think of the article I’d just read about what Putin was doing in Russia:

“This is the first time in post-Soviet history when only the Kremlin decides who can participate and who can’t,” Mr. Ryzhkov said. “The Kremlin decides which party can exist and which party cannot. For the first time in post-Soviet history, a wide specter of political forces cannot participate in this election. I call it selection before election.”

Here in the US we now have an elite who decides who is subject to the law and who is not. Let’s call it “selection before prosecution”: where the bedrock principle that the “rule of law” should be applied equally is abandoned.

When this sort of power grab is being done by Putin it sets off all kinds of warnings about old Soviet system, and even Condi Rice warns about the “concentration of power” in the Kremlin.

But when it happens here in the US, those not embracing our new “concentration of power” and the new “selective” rule of law are dismissed as “soft on terrorism.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/14/world/europe/14russia.html?hp

"Talking Points" believes most Americans reject that foolishness.

We need to keep in mind that when Bill O’Reilly talks about “most Americans” that he’s usually referring to 27% who still support Bush.

The most recent Rasmussen poll showed that the national general election “most Americans” preferred the “foolishness” of Edwards to the oh-so-serious GOP candidates with Edwards leading Giuliani (49% to 41%) and Thompson (49% to 35%).

And on the subject of “coerced interrogation” only 27% thought America should feel free to torture those in captivity.

As Scott Horton pointed out, “it is almost exactly the same fraction of the American public which now expresses confidence in Bush’s performance of his job as president.”

Obviously, what “Talking Points” believes, and what “most Americans” actually believe are completely different things.

And that’s been the case for quite some time.

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/poll_rasmussen_obama_edwards_v_1.php

http://harpers.org/archive/2007/10/hbc-90001399

So last night O’Reilly condemned "soft on terrorism" John Edwards for supporting Habeus Corpus.

But just a few days ago (in the process of condemning Bruce Springsteen) he insisted that there had been no violations of Habeus Corpus:

However, I don't respect the dissent unless Springsteen can back up his opinions with facts. Violations of Habeas Corpus, Bruce? When and where?

That sounds like Bill supports Habeus Corpus, which, he insists, hasn’t been violated.

Which is it Bill? If you support Habeus Corpus and there have been no violations of Habeus Corpus, then why are you condemning Edwards for advocating Habeus Corpus?

Obviously Mr. “Talking Points” can’t keep his talking points straight.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299126,00.html