We can clearly see by this latest and most blatant of examples that an appetite for Republican talking points, journalistic laziness, and a toxic combination of pride and denial all come together to give us the mockery we call much of the traditional media.

However, I'd like to venture going an additional layer down. Why is it that way? Why do "journalists" like Klein behave the way they do? I think a lot of this can be explained by the right wing's honing of unequivocal, aggressive defense and propagation of their opinions and worldviews. Much of it began with Reagan, when Ronnie mocked and trivialized liberalism to the glee of shiny-haired executives and yuppies everywhere. This cheerful (and sometimes not-so-cheerful) maliciousness then became a sort of template for the entire Republican Party, as we moved into the 90s, culminating with Gingrich's ascension and the circus side-show of the Clinton impeachment.

Of course, the mentality had other roots and explanations as well, but the GOP's swagger and aggression is and has been very much akin to a rabid monkey who has discovered and learned how to wield a gun. Confidence and alacrity in politics, as I noted in the other thread, are extremely potent weapons in politics (as with any other social endeavor). The Republicans discovered these weapons -- along with feverish organization -- and focused their energy on mastering them, whether they knew it or not.

All the while, in many ways, they neglected other valuable human attributes, like rationality, logic, consistency, and principle. The result has been a strange mutant in American politics, where utterly nonsensical points of view are rammed into the discourse by brute force, riding a crest of power, wealth, and pure self-assurance.

Lazy and unimaginative journalists -- the most common kind -- succumb to this noxious spell like fruit flies to spoiled bananas. Unable or unwilling to do any research themselves, they reflexively adopt the viewpoints most forcefully fed to them -- the one's surrounded by a miasma of "gravitas," or that come from ostensibly "serious" sources. Like trained poodles, they have been conditioned throughout their professional weening period to associate these charismatic traits with the unequivocal voices on the right, as too many voices on the left not only saw, but more importantly openly expressed, so many wonderful shades of gray.

It will take a new generation of the accomplished, the hungry upstarts of the new media movements, to dispel the ossified and deeply misguided mentalities that have come to dominate the media after these decades of deformed conditioning.

to this:

It will take a new generation of the accomplished, the hungry upstarts of the new media movements, to dispel the ossified and deeply misguided mentalities that have come to dominate the media after these decades of deformed conditioning.

It will also take a new class of liberal politicians, those who can balance rationality with strength of conviction, to wrest control of the national narrative from the bullies on the right. One thing I have noticed about the media is that, when confronted with a genuinely strong advocate on the left -- although they first disbelieve and try to minimize -- they eventually grant that advocate respect.

Strength matters. It is gravitational.

Markos is saying exactly what I think of this situation. So have many others, including commenters here.

Kos:

Hopefully this incident accomplishes some things, like ... that the best way to win the media wars isn't to behave like a beaten puppy and beg reporters for scraps of good coverage. Nope, the best way is to forcefully demand they to do their jobs fairly and accurately.

I maintain that a big reason (admittedly not the only reason) for the phenomenon exemplified by this Time magazine affair is that Republicans have been fighting ardently and aggressively for their beliefs, for quite a long time, while the Democrats have only sought to appease and please.

Sure, there's a lot to be said about fairness, and giving all reasonable viewpoints a fair shake, but for crying out loud, Democrats, when you know what you believe, fight for it. You don't have to be nasty, just firm, strong, and unequivocal. And you have to speak up when it counts. Is this really so hard to understand???

Like I've said before, the media didn't get this way overnight. Yes, there are many factors to explain why they behave like this, but there's no doubt in my mind that a significant reason for it is that human beings (we are talking about human beings, remember) are drawn toward conviction and strength, and shun weakness and uncertainty.

Ever notice how others tend to butt in with a contradictory word when someone starts to falter in what they're saying? Ever see a panel debate where a person who expresses his or her beliefs strongly and clearly earns the respect of the others even when they disagree? Ever notice how people in groups practically swarm to destroy the individuals among them that show weakness? I see it all the time. Literally all the time.

I'm far from saying this explains everything, but I really do think our media has been substantially conditioned by repeated differences in the manner of presentation of the "two sides." Absolutely, bloggers and other voices need to aggressively challenge this lazy, entrenched bias, but they can't do it alone. Democratic politicians desperately need to learn to stand up for themselves if they will ever reverse this pernicious trend.

And if they don't, they need to be replaced with real leaders so fast their mushy little heads spin.