ctually, you have your facts completely wrong. They do claim to be nonpartisan and free of an ideological agenda. I had an exchange with John Harris, its Editor-in-Chief, in which he explained that the reason bloggers don't like The Politico is because bloggers have a partisan agenda whereas The Politico does not.

I agree absolutely. The first directive of the propagandist is to insinuate the propaganda in as NEWS not propaganda. That WAS the Politico's mode, but Mr. Greenwald has done a great job in ripping the cover of objectivity off the core Repukeliscum operating system. I have posted this expose at a number of places.

That several negative reactions to Mr. Greenwald's efforts have arrived at the same time is interesting. Is there a ... reason for this??

It doesn't mean squat, actually. It's just another player in the word wars. Why you people have your panties in a twist is beyond me. Obviously Glenn has too much time on his hands and there is a dearth of real news to consider.

Wow. Another amazing wingnut bozo.

When we out a propagandist, this is important. We now understand that the Politico is not a neutral source, like a few of the media outlets are. Rather, it is biased and slanted.

If you don't think this is important, you are another useful idiot for the right. The right is continually attempting to tell us that all stories are slanted, so their DELIBERATE and INTENSE slant is no different than other, non-deliberate slant. This is wrong, and is a lie. But it is a TELL for the presence of a right-wing-nut propagandist, and that would be you, shooterinyourfoot.

Now, he has identified Matthews as compromised. This, again, is important.

News sources are either hacks or journalists. When you are a hack, your statements are worthless, because they are all spin. Anything, ANYTHING, said by Bill Kristol is worthless, because everything he says is in service of his agenda. All choices of adjectives and adverbs in his discussions are carefully chosen to provide additional velocity to his agenda.

Matthews has now graduated from journalist to hack propagandist.

'm arguing a more theoretical point, which is that even in an ideal world, humans are inherently shaped by their perceptions and biases. Unless you're simply listing objective facts with no other verbage other than the facts, the potential for bias is there. Not in the deliberate, Fox-news lying kind of way, but simply in the way we all put a little of ourselves into everything we write and say. Perhaps I should use "slant" for this dynamic instead of "bias," but either way I mean the same thing. And in light of that, even in the ideal world which is far beyond our current reality, people should still endeavor to read various sources, both journalistic and opinion oriented, to build a complete view of a subject. Above all, I think people should do everything they can to be independant in their thinking, even though we can never free ourselves of the lenses shaped by our upbringing, society, education and experiences.

1) Slant and bias are NOT the same. Slant is a deliberate attempt to bring opinion into a neutral subject (the news). Slant is what Fox, the Politico, and the Washington Times does.

Bias on the other hand is a someone inevitable component of all stories. In a story about labor, either labor or management must be discussed first, and this introduces a bias in the coverage.

Slant can come from bias. In the Politico case, this may be the case, I dunno. They cover the Dems from a negative perspective, and the Repukeliscum from a positive. This takes a bias, story by story, and produces in the long run a slant.

2) Subrosa slant is even more deceptive. The Politico was getting away with biasing information, because no one understood their slant.

3) Greenwald exposed the slant.

There are two reasons why many are annoyed at your blase, laise-faire attitude.

a) You apparently believe that slant and bias are the same, as in your comment above. Bias comes from organization and editing, but slant is a deliberate set of choices.

b) You believe that an informed consumer reading slanted coverage can extract neutral information. This is either INCREDIBLY naive, TOTALLY idiotic or a comment which reeks of its own slanted, directed motivation. If you are not a troll as you claim, I withdraw my allegation of koolaidism. I suggest that you think more carefully about your idea here. It is wrong. Thousands of years of human history, all psychological research on slanted information, and recent history during WWII indicates that propaganda works, works even when intelligent people understand the evil motivation of the propaganda source, and produces long-term problems.

When propaganda is produced, the main aim of the propagandist is to substitute propaganda/slant/prostituted coverage for real, unbiased, accurate coverage. This is the meaning and true service that Greenwald produced - he revealed Politico as a propaganda source. And, in response, you said "Propaganda is fine." You need to carefully rethink your idea here.

Please understand that I'm not defending Politico or the MSM, I'm simply a proponent of reading different takes, both journalistic as well as opinion oriented, on important issues.

You are a koolaid drinker, and probably a staffer from the Politico. The Politico is a slanted, and deliberately biased publication, and you are saying that we should PRETEND that it is not biased. That's stupid. And, no, you are wrong about bias. Not every publication is biased. This old "they all do it" is the standard, crapular excuse offered up by Fox, the New York Post,the Washington Times, and all of the other crapular, slanted , Repukeliscum house organs to defend their slant.

I have been booted from dKos, so cannot diary there. Would someone post a piece on dKos about the Politico?

I will post on myDD and BoomanTrib, as well as several others.