Glenn, another commenter quoted something I sad in a comment a few posts ago to the effect that I applauded your recent emphasis on the failings of the mainstream press, and you objected that it was not recent. I in no way meant to imply that you were late to the party -- I agree that you have been pointing out their follies from the start of your blog.

I'm not sure which exactly comment you mean, but I absolutely do not contest the notion that I have placed increasing emphasis on writing about media issues. You're entirely right about that. I was just contesting the notion, voiced by some in the "Things-were-better-in-the-good-old-days" contingent, that I used to only write about elevated legal matters and stayed above the media and political fray.

One of the things I like most about blogging is that I always feel like I'm learning, that my views on things are changing, that the scope of what I think is important expands.

Although I paid relatively close attention to political matters before I began blogging, I didn't pay anywhere near this level of attention before October, 2005. As a result, I learn more all the time by looking at things much more closely, re-examining past assumptions, etc.

And one of the things I learned during the course of writing about the NSA scandal - and I pointed this out the other day - is that it doesn't really matter how grave the government's behavior is or how stirring and incisive one's commentary about it is if the media obscures, distorts and conceals those issues, as they did with the NSA matter.

That was a case where it was revealed that the President was deliberately committing felonies for years, and he vowed to continue to, and they treated it -- when they addressed it at all -- as something to chuckle over, as a purely political matter where the only interesting question was how hard Karl Rove could bash Democrats over the head because Democrats didn't "want to listen in when Osama calls." Conservative and liberal pundits alike joined in that chorus.

All of that really clarified for me exactly the ways in which our press is broken, as well as the fact -- for better or worse -- that if one wants to have an effect on any specific issue, the distortive wall built by the media has to either be chipped away and broken down and/or circumvented through alternative means of communications.

That's why I focus on those issues much more. I realize more than I did before how central those issues are to pretty much everything. In general, those who control the tools of debate win the debate.

Re: Beg to disagree. It's not "anti-blogger hatred"

it's anti-LEFTY-blogger contempt.

I agree with this completely. When I say "blogger," I really don't count the John Hinderakers and Michelle Malkins and the like. They are not contributing anything new. They are just projecting the same stuff from the right-wing noise machine onto the Interent.

It's what is referred to as "the liberal blogosphere" that prompts all the complaints, because the critiques that emanate from there are not found anywhere else (except in rare places - a radio show here, a magazine there).

I don't think he is differentiating left-wing bloggers from Rush Limbaugh as far as "things just went too far". I don't see that in the section you quote.

My point here is that long before bloggers emerged, the various components of the right-wing noise machine -- the Rush Limbaughs and Matt Drudges and Fox News -- were viciously attacking the supposedly "Liberal Media" on a daily basis with the most personal and insulting sorts of assaults.

And the Joe Kleins and company didn't unleash these angry outbursts then. They did the opposite. The apologized and desperately tried to figure out how to appease those criticisms.

The angry pushback happened only since blogs began attacking with a much different narrative.

I'm not sure who these "left-wing bloggers" are? You? Andrew Sullivan? Are these bloggers the new "liberals"? Another bad but vague sect. He specifically states Limbaugh after all.

That's a different question altogether, and I've given up trying to constantly make the point. I think the world has basically become divided into two broad political categories (at least for now) -- those who are supportive of the Bush regime and the prevailing power structure that surrounds it, and those who are opposed. The latter group is called "liberal." That is how I would define the "liberal blogosphere."

Still he does make it sound like the bloggers are worse than Rush Limbaugh. If anything because Limbaugh has been doing his thing for a while, and that ad revenue is already out the window. But these left-wing bloggers are killing key demographics!

That's what I can only guess from the snip of him on CPAN Book-TV that you've posted.

-- duffolonious

Well, I never thought I'd agree with Roger Ailes . . . .

As sysprog pointed out, it's the blogger Roger Ailes, not the Republican operative/Fox News President.

(By the way Glenn, I asked you this before but got no answer. Why don't you refer to Chomsky in your critique of the MSM?)

I refer to people whom I cite, quote and on whom I rely for arguments. I read Noam Chomsky back in college, but not since then. I've seen interviews with him very periodically. He's extremely intelligent and articulate, but I don't cite him because I'm not relying on him or his arguments in what I argue.