...is an in-depth analysis of BigMedia's role (past & present) in our political life, especially how we got here, that is on a par with what has happened with the stories on the attorneys being purged or the neglect of veterans at Walter Reed. A narrative story on the evening news and in the papers and in the late-night hosts' stand-up routines.

Instead, the BigMedia's treatment of Gore is still treated as a collection of debatable anecdotes, ingoring the underlying infrastructure, narrative, and, yes, monied interests, that have brought us to this place... where GWB is finishing out what might have been Al Gore's 2nd term. (The Naderites bear some responsibility, too, but could not have delivered the electoral dilemma without BigMedia's help.)

The only reason, or at least the main one, that the attorney story has grown legs is that Josh Marshall and his crew paid enough attention to the tips and stories they were getting from their readers. They connected the dots. And then they asked for more data.

That still has not really happened to the story about how the press treated Gore. Lots of people know, just from casually watching the news, about the political implications of Iglesias' and Lam's firings. How many people know about the incident at Dartmouth where the entire press corp(se) in attendance laughed and guffawed at Gore throughout the entire debate or speech? (I'm not sure which.) Not many-- just the political junkies like the ones who read Salon... and this blog. (We are truly grateful for your new blog, Joan! Who else allows us such access?) And those lies about what Gore did or did not say about the internet, Love Canal, and Love Story, are still treated as conventional wisdom! Good Grief.

Of course-- why would BigMedia choose to cover its own record any more rigorously than the GOP has chosen to police either itself or the man posturing as our president? They wouldn't. That is why this story is only going to become big enough for the public to understand it if (left-wing) bloggers continue to write and talk about it, and make it entirely impossible to ignore.

In fact, maybe there should be a more coordinated and concerted effort by bloggers to grow this particular story some legs. It isn't just about Gore's last campaign, or Modo calling an entire field of Democratic candidates The Seven Dwarves...

It's about the next campaign.

We could name it (program, campaign, meme) in honor of Molly Ivins. After all, if more people had read her first book about Shrub, she wouldn't have had to write the second one.

Of course, the pundits want us to move on. "Nothing to see here!" They don't want it pointed out, again, that they and their colleagues haven't been doing their jobs-- political analysis and investigative reporting-- well enough to keep abreast of the administration during the past 6 years.

So, perhaps it does seem to some observers that the Democratic caucus is having to do more investigative than legislative work at the moment. It's because there is a GIANT BACKLOG there, as well as in legislative areas, because the GOP caucus, aided and abetted by its journalistic minions, did not do its work properly before the last election. Not in oversight, and not in passing needed legislation. Yet, somehow the Democrats get branded as being obstructionist trouble-makers eager only to put on politically-motivated show-trials.

It would have been so much easier for the Democrats to coast along for the next two years, and let the GOP finish its inevitable death spiral uninterrupted, without any checks or brakes on Bush. (That the GOP still think there's even a chance in 2008 for a Publican president-- as things now stand-- is a measure of just how much denial they are still in.)

Instead, the Democratic caucus under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi, in particular, has taken on a huge task to try and turn things around before it's too late. Now that takes real guts! A lot more guts than were displayed by the Publicans the past 6-1/2 years when they were too afraid of Karl Rove and his punishments to exercise any oversight.

I haven't liked that term for a long time. It seems too innocuous.

So, I often use BigMedia, which does not take as long to write/type as Corporate Media, but still gets the idea across. And I guess it also echoes the Publicans' use of Big Government. Or, maybe Big Brother.

And, sometimes... it's BigMediaGuys (the owners/CEOs)

I don't know if you're still reading this thread, but in case you are, I can understand the appeal of "presstitutes," but I honestly prefer terms that don't echo derogatory terms for women. We are so saturated with them already, why pile on more?

That whole line about voters wanting more civility and non-partisanship is pure baloney!

In the last election, voters clearly wanted someone to put the brakes on GWB, and it had finally become crystal clear even to the most casual political observer, that the GOP is/was constitutionally (pun intended) incapable of such oversight.

As I mentioned in a comment on one of Glenn Greenwald's post, the REAL reason that the so-called press does not want too many investigations is because they know it will reveal how poorly they have been doing their own jobs (with a few notable exceptions.)

Others in that commented on the lack of laughter at the WH Press Corps' dinner last year when Stephen Colbert skewered them all. That alone was proof that the press is implicated in many, if not most, of the failures of this administration.

The only parties who really want more civility are those who merely want to maintain the status quo, which includes their own status among the elites inside the Beltway. "Move along, folks, nothing to see here," they say. Hah!