I particularly enjoyed David Halberstam’s comment upon what is authentic and inauthentic in contemporary American life and his warning about the celebrity culture that’s overtaken our media.

Other countries (most notably Europe and Australia) also have celebrities and even “news celebrities” but they’ve managed to keep their news media as a whole from succumbing to the total infotainment in pursuit of ratings that now dominates the U.S. media. It is the same part of U.S. culture that has prompted obscene executive corporate salaries that are not seen in other countries; and, in turn, those obscene salaries exacerbate the trend toward ratings and “infotainment” over real news as some “journalists” abandon journalism to become instead rich celebrities.

We still have some excellent reporters and reporting in this country, but they are the ones not seeking popularity but trying to do their job. Sadly, authenticity in this country doesn’t pay very much, it isn’t rewarded in our celebrity culture that is only obsessed with becoming richer than then next person.

Responding to Glenn (who he doesn’t name except by insult, and doesn’t link to) John Hinderaker writes in an update:

The salient point here is that Kevin Tillman is pursuing his antiwar political agenda by making over-the-top--and I think plainly false--accusations against the military and the administration.

It looks like John finds himself in a hole and decides to dig deeper. Did Kevin Tillman clearly lie under oath before Congress?

What evidence does Mr. Hinderaker present to substantiate this charge? I can't find any. Anyone?

If you are going to make a serious charge like that, shouldn’t you at least tell you readers what you’re referring to?

Where did Kevin lie? What false accusations did he make?

I’m not familiar with the phrase “enterprise reporting” and don’t know how it might be different than “independent” reporting if at all; but this interview basically describes a “herd mentality” among the nation’s press corp of what is and is not “news” with very few exceptions.

Moreover, I think a component of this “herd mentality” is a lack of skepticism to “official pageantry” not just reluctance to follow up on independent reports because of the “high learning” curve.

In short, Charlies is being too kind in some ways, and this isn’t mere reluctance to report what others have already reported, but this “laziness” to take on topics that require a lot of research is also evident in the mere quoting of a government official and not following up to see if what the official says has any basis in fact.

Thus, laziness and lack of skepticism reinforce each other and lead to the “herd mentality” which is symptomatic of a dysfunctional media.

That the press, with the notable exception of Knight-Ritter was complicit in disseminating false information is now undeniable.

One of the most embarrassing moments for the Washington Press came right at the beginning during a Bush press conference where they all dutifully raised their hands as they might be called on, knowing full well that the entire event was “scripted” by the administration who knew exactly who it would call on and in what order – and what questions would be asked and answered.

By raising their hands, the press intentionally went along with deceiving the public as to their role. This is exactly like Bush’s “staged” Townhall conversations with the public where every one who speaks is hand-picked. The press knowingly and willingly went along with such stagecraft and thus became part of the propaganda machine.

The Washington Post's Mary Ann Akers seems to be channeling the very same phantom Democrats that David Broder did when he insisted that there was a “long list” of senators who are ready for Reid’s tenure “to end.”

In both cases it appears to be one single “neoconservative non-Democratic warmonger Senator” and his cheerleading brigade consisting of Dan Gerstein.

Usually “long lists” contain at least one person that fits the description.

Sadly, when they can’t find such a person, Broder and Akers write fantasy and Fox News style fiction, rather than facts. A rather common occurrence for our “liberal media” as it exists at the Washington Post.

Let’s see, a Democratic candidate is found guilty of posting on a popular Democratic-leaning blog and that is, in these perilous times, a scandal. Wow. That’s all they’ve got? Pathetic.

Pelosi’s trip to Syria, Clinton’s southern accent, Edwards haircut, Obama’s “racism” in his book, and on and on. The problem, for the GOP, is that there’s nothing to any of these “scandals” – nothing. It’s all hype, spin and intellectual dishonesty, but that’s all modern “conservatives” have anymore.

This is a perfect example of what Krugman referred to as the “little lie” technique of the GOP – they’re relying on trivial smears of the Democrats to try to take attention away from the very real scandals of the Republicans, and the media keeps going along. As he put it:

The G.O.P.'s reversion to the Little Lie technique is a symptom of political weakness, of a party reduced to trivial smears because it has nothing else to offer. But the technique will remain effective - and the U.S. political scene will remain ugly - as long as many people in the news media keep playing along.

Glenn’s post today is just more proof that the “liberal” news media is still playing along.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/040907F.shtml

So which liberal/Democratic blogs would Dan Gerstein approve of Democratic candidates posting on?

Which liberal/Democratic blogs have not ever criticized Joe Lieberman?

I can’t think of any.

On the other hand, Mark Noonan of the “mainstream” Blogs for Bush hopes, indeed, “prays” that Joe Lieberman is the GOP’s Vice Presidential candidate in 2008.

I think that may be a “mainstream” blog Gerstein would be comfortable with.

http://www.blogsforbush.com/mt/archives/2007/04/it_makes_no_sen.html