...Glenn's Update II regarding ABC News' report on the anthrax mailings, the report was complete bullshit, and presumably complete bullshit from an administration source. It turned out, of course, that the anthrax was Grade A U.S. aged anthrax.

I just wrote and then deleted a very lengthy message on the subject of why Yankfest's poll findings do not even obliquely counter Glenn's claim regarding pre-war reporting being a source of distrust of the media for "many Americans." It was rather technical and relied formal logic and statistical analysis. I've decided instead to offer the following Dr. Seuss version for Yankfest:

Your poll purporting to show an increase in trust in the media in certain years post-invasion does not in any way establish what you claimed it established. Your analysis of the poll relies on a faulty premise, i.e., that the poll is a product of an assessment by the respondents of the trustworthiness of the media's pre-war reporting on Iraq. However, as every poll on the subject has confirmed, either a majority of substantial minority of Americans believe either that WMD were found in Iraq or that Saddam was involved in 9/11, each of which we know are demonstrably untrue. Accordingly, with respect to these large numbers of ill-informed people, their response to the poll is not a reflection of their assessment of media trustworthiness but rather a reflection of their ignorance, and presumably many would reverse their assessment of media trustworthiness if they were informed that they harbored absurd misconceptions.

Anyway, Glenn is absolutely correct that informal observations of the blogosphere are sufficient as a basis for his claim that disillusionment with pre-war reporting is a source of mistrust of the media among "many Americans." Yankfest is merely exhibiting an inability to read with care.

Let's not mince words here. Reynolds is advocating genocide. I firmly believe in the principle of academic freedom, and in erring on the side of permissiveness in this area. But there plainly are limits, and if advocacy of genocide doesn't cross that line I don't know what does.

Hiatt's epiphany can be easily explained, just as the reasons for Joe Klein's recent enlightenment are readily apparent. They are quite plainly willing to carry water for bushie right up to the point where slavish adherence to the Rovian narrative threatens to immolate their journalistic credibility. Only at that point are they willing to reverse course.

What really happened in Attorneygate over the last two weeks that could account for Hiatt's change of heart? Not much, other than a redoubling of the bush administration's efforts to cover-up, hide Abu in the attic and retain in their jobs Justice Dept. officials who plead the 5th. However, as in the Libby case, the overwhelming evidence of a cover-up never convinced Hiatt that there was anything to this scandal. The only thing that has really changed is that republican support for Abu continues to steadily erode. Perhaps it's coincidence that Hiatt's epiphany comes only days after Gingrich's abandonment of the S.S. Gonzalez. But more likely the most recent WaPo editorial is just another instance in which Freddie Hiatt tested the prevailing political winds and tacked accordingly in his editorial.

I am willing to concede that Fred Hiatt is finally attuned to the vagaries of power and influence in D.C. As a journalist, however, he's rather like a substance that we generally scrape off of our shoes.

Would the MSM generally agree with Kamiya's criticims? I highly doubt it. There is a reluctance - nay, pathological refusal - to level against themselves anything more than the most trivial criticisms. Here's Peter Baker - a good reporter for the Washington Post - in this morning's Post live chat>

New York: You seem to have a rather agnostic view of Fox News. Do you, as a journalist, consider Fox News to be a legitimate journalistic enterprise? Are they just like The Washington Post in that regard?

Peter Baker: And yes, we've pretty well exhausted this topic, but yes, of course I view Fox News as a legitimate journalistic enterprise. Again, I'm not talking about talk shows. That's a different beast on Fox and everywhere else for that matter. I wish we'd cut back on the talk shows and have more news on all the channels.

"...yes of course I view Fox News as a legitimate journalistic enterprise." Stunning. His attempt to differentiate Fox News from the O'Reilly type "talk show" is absurd, of course. Is Brit Hume like Brian Williams? Are the notorious Fox Newx chyrons the work of a genuine journalistic enterprise?

The press can't seem to come to grips with critical issues confronting the media. They deem themselves nothing more than conduits for those with political agendas, whose job involves nothing more than providing equal time to each side. Their approach is, in a very real sense, a repudiation of the very essence of journalism.

If guys like Baker can't bring themselves to concede that Fox News is outside the bounds of legitimate journalism, there is very little hope that comments like Kamiya's will be viewed by the MSM with anything other than defensiveness and dismissiveness.