Did I mention that my interest in politics only rose to its current level in the last 5 years or so its unsurprising that things I might say in passing about the 80's might be assailable by those who know more than I do. I am arguing by instinct. I am familiar with RW attacks on traditional leftists positions and I do want to guard against them. Which is of course why I labelled my first post on this thread "not to be a concern troll but..."

I think that there's a tremendous opportunity in the country precipitated by the general public's sudden awarness that we're being led by a cadre of greedy crooks who also have absolutely no regard for the sanctity of human life.

But all the straw men that have been erected over the last 20 years are still in place. I think that a return to sanity will require an alliance between the traditional leftists and the self identified conservatives who nevertheless realize that our country has been hijacked.

A return to the golden age of Huntley, Brinkley and Cronkite is not a possibility. We need to forge a new path.

I was going to provide a snappy answer but then I noticed the "legitimately" qualifier. In a world where the Washington Post is considered "liberal media", Universities are hotbeds of Socialism, and FDR is a lefty loon arguing against fairness is easy. Just rename it censorship and be done with it. Shooter has aleady demonstrated the process on this thread.

The whole debate is muddied by the idea, now thoroughly spread, that there is something noble about being stupid. David Horowitz is of course making a successful career out of spreading the idea. By railing against academics, he helps spread the idea that smart people want to lord it over the rest of us.

Once, one has bought into that frame , portraying the fairness doctrine as an example of elite meddling is a piece of cake.

I'm not sure the country is ready for it. I will happily allow anyone the opportunity to show me wrong.

Although this kind of thinking, either relativism or constructivism, in the language of philosophy, started on the left, conservatives feel empowered by it, too, and some of them have embraced it with a vengeance, on issues ranging from global warming and evolution to the war in Iraq

One of the more effective RW distractions has been to change an argument over what may or may not be true to an argument over what may or may not be knowable. Global warming and evolution are just the most visible victims of the tactic. And of course, the constituents who support the process get to feel good about their own ignorance.

Orwell wrote that "ignorance is strength" but I think a more apt slogan would be "stupidity is virtue.

Is that people are willing to pay boodles of extra money for the privilege of avoiding people who can't.

While the goal of dispersing poverty to better deal with it might be noble, it will remain a pleasant fantasy for the forseeable future.

We need to work very hard to get past the idea that the Iraq war is a contest that be lost or won. It is in fact a situation that can improve or degenerate. But as long as people are thinking in terms of "winning" or "losing" they are imagining an outcome or end state after which there's no longer a contest. This is of course nonsense. But unless I'm wrong, this whole Harry Reid flap is based on this persistent illusion. By using the term "losing" he bought into the frame.

We need to work past it or it will continue to bite us in the ass.

As much as they believe this to be an effective tactic, it isn't too difficult to recognize that it's all bluster meant to disguise intellectual flaccidity.

I think, at this point, they're no longer trying to convince anyone with a brain. But there's still that cadre of true believers that need to be fed periodically lest they go wandering off the reservation.

Grave Overgeneralization ahead!

It's clear that most journalists are just hacks

If most journalists were hacks, then our constant pounding would be futile. Many journalists are in fact hard working and many have done excellent work. TV-talking heads on the other hand........

Many of the worst distorions and cheap shots originate higher up the food chain. TPM noted yesterday that CNN was running a banner reading "Cheney attacks defeatist Dem plan". Call it waht you want, the person responsible for that headline was NO Journalist!

It could be pointed out that protecting a source who's lied to a reporter in the past can nevertheless help inspire the confidence of future sources. That the confidence it inspires is the confidence to lie with impunity is an unfortunate side-effect.

You are much more optimistic than I am. I don't doubt they work hard

I just finished Feet to the Fire: The Media After 9/11, Top Journalists Speak Out

http://www.amazon.com/Feet-Fire-Media-After-Journalists/dp/1591023432

It starts with all the hackery in the front and works its way to the heroes toward the end. As it's a rather long book, its quite possible that my judgment has been skewed as a result.

is having its desired effect

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/25/AR2007042501863.html

The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform today authorized subpoenas for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Republican Party documents as part of probes into a key assertion in the run-up to the Iraq war and alleged violations of presidential records