I'm not sure how anybody can fail to grasp the importance of dissecting the pathological nature of the modern Beltway media. Given that they're responsible for the fact that Bush got elected in the first place, I'd think we'd all grasp by now the importance of exposing their machinations to the public.

This is very well said and I couldn't agree more. Not only did they give us the Bush presidency, but also everything that went with it - the invasion of Iraq, the constant lies about the Great Progress we were making there, the systematic lawbreaking. All of it has been propped up and enabled by our wretched media dysfunction. They not only failed in their function to serve as a watchdog over the government, but far worse, they actively enabled and defended it.

There is no more important issue than doing what one can to shed light on that and change it. I have no intention of writing about any of these issues less. Ironically, moving the blog to Salon has amplified those critiques. In the eyes of the type of national journalists about whom I tend to write, critiques that are written on Salon have to be taken seriously and answered, whereas the same critiques written by the same person but on a blog can be safely ignored.

That has enabled what I write here to have a much greater impact with the media targets of these posts. And when that is combined with the readers using email and comment sections and other forms of demands that these journalists respond to the criticisms, these critiques end up being heard loud and clear. That has an effect - a real effect - on how they behave from that point forward (there are numerous examples of this, most recently Howard Kurtz's column on "blog anger" prominently including comments from LGF along with HuffPost because readers here demanded that he pay attention to that).

It is hard, slogging work to try to shame journalists into giving up their poisonous habits and behave more resopnsibly. In some cases, it's just not going to happen, but in many cases, it will. And the only way to do it is to target them, by name, one-by-one, with extremely well-documented critiques that they can't ignore, and rely upon others to amplify those critiques and demand that they respond. That is one of the things which bloggers can genuinely achieve and make a difference with.

Each one of these posts about The Politico - not just here but elsewhere - will chip away at its credibility and prevent it from holding itself out as some sort of objective, professional newspaper as it deliberately spews right-wing Drudge filth. Michael Gordon and his editors have to construct their Iran articles knowing that every sentence is being scrutinized for anonymous source abuse and overly credible summaries of pro-Bush claims. Time and Newsweek's top reporters have all been subjected to strong criticism of their work and have felt obliged to defend themselves.

All of this makes a big difference - gradually, sometimes impercitibly, but still substantial. If some people (and I know it's a small minority) find posts about the media uninteresting, they are going to have to skip them or read elsehwere, because the last thing I'm planning on doing is to stop writing about such matters.

That said, I have to admit that I love Gawker, too. Sometimes those of us who take everything seriously need a break, considering how nightmarish things have gotten. And a bunch of bright people feigning disinterest in everything making bitchy comments about toe cleavage sometimes does the trick.

I don't actually disagree with this. Like I said, I used to read Wonkette, and I thought Ana Marie was often very funny. There is a place - even a need - for mockery of even the most serious matters.

But I don't think that Gawker post was funny or even trying to be funny. I think it was making a point and was trying to be serious in that point. Either way, it really embodied the mindset I've been describing with regard to national journalists so perfectly, and so I thought it was worth highlighting. Plus, there may be a personal aspect to it - I lived in Manhattan for 15 years and know those types all too too too well, and part of the motivation to respond may have been an outlet for some dislike.

And, I'm from New York, so I know what you mean, but some of that, uh...dislike...came through in your comment, which is unfortunate because you are generally above such things.

Fair enough. I ignore the vast, vast majority of things written about me that are insulting or critical on petty levels - I try hard never to respond to things if doing so would produce nothing more than substance-less squabbles. I try to confine the times when I respond only to those times when doing so makes a substantive point worth making beyond the disagreement itself - both because I don't think people want to read petty squabbles and also because they're not what I want to spend my time and energy on.

But we're all human and sometimes more personal or anger-driven sentiments might guide a particular decision about whether to answer or what the other is, try as I might to exclude those influences.