I'm not really sure I get your point, other than as a semantic re-shaping of the word "partisan." Stephen Colbert was mocking the notion that "reality has a well-known liberal bias." That's the premise on which Bush followers disregarded, for instance, reports of escalating violence in Iraq, or the collapsing popularity of Bush - "oh, that's just liberal bias talking." It wasn't. They were facts.

I think the role of the media is to uncover and disclose important facts that the Government is concealing. I think they ought to behave exactly the same way whether the government is run by Democrats or Republicans. In what possible sense of the word "partisan" would that fit?

I agree with all above - that 70% figure is incredibly damning of the media. Any profession which would allow a 70% inaccuracy to be held on such an important point should cease calling their job a "profession" at all, out of pure shame if nothing else. Can you imagine doctors and the AMA standing idly by if they found out 70% of the people thought, say, they could protect themselves from avian flu just by smoking? There would be press conferences, public hearings, and doctors would be on all the media possible in order to set the record straight.

Reinstalling the Fairness Doctrine would be one thing, but I would love if there was some sort of Eat Your Vegtables Doctrine that would get the media to act like an actual profession. Something that would forbid the media from talking about campaign gossip and celebrity baby adoptions until the public was properly informed so they can make the right decisions about going to war.

For Christ's sake - as of September of 2006, 43% of people STILL thought Saddam was personally involved in 9/11!!

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/06/iraq.poll/index.html

As far as I'm concerned, the media should be putting "SADDAM HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11" above the fold in every paper, at the top of the hour in every news broadcast, every single day until, at the very least, 90% of the people realize the Saddam-9/11 connection is complete bullshit. Then, once the American people are properly informed about the real issues, only then should the media think it's approprtiate to air their usual swill of movie grosses and Britney mental health updates.

Glenn:

this was in the comments section of today's eric alterman column:

One can wonder if one reason Politico is so Bushy and Drudgy is that it's owned by a big Bush fan from a family of big Bush fans. He's Robert Albritton, whose family owned the old Washington Star, still has a bunch of TV stations, and who was CEO of the late Riggs Bank before the bank pleaded guilty to laundering millions of dollars for Chile's late dictator Augusto Pinochet, Prince Bandar and other rich Saudis, and crooked officials of Equatorial Guinea. Riggs Bank paid a $16 million fine and was sold two years ago. President George W.'s uncle, Jonathan Bush, was in charge of Riggs' investment arm, according to the Demopedia website, and Bush knew the Albrittons well enough to wave at Robert's father during his inauguration parade and yell, "Hey Joe, how are you?" Joe Albritton was a Bush fundraiser and donated a portrait of Ronald Reagan that hangs in the White House.(See NYTimes 3/10 and 3/30/05 +

are you aware of this? is it accurate?

Different possibilities exist for why this is; one I think is possible is that we are pattern makers, and we tend to first try to make things fit in existing patterns before we adjust or make new ones

I personnally think we operate at two levels. I think one's basic (for lack of a better phrase) political parameters are layed out at a rather early age. (certainly by the time I hit 6th grade mine were established.) At that level I think people seek there comfort level in where they go for information and discussion. But at the detailed level of "what's the best course of action today?", we have a much greater degree of flexibilty. After all, there are literally millions of people who supported our invasion of Iraq in 2003 who don't support it now. They are still the same people. They still have the same basic political outlook.

And what's even more remarkable is that their change of heart probably isn't dictated by their absorbing new factual data but rather their reevaluation of the trustworthiness of their data sources.

You write: The media was an active accomplice in peddling lies to the American people. There can be no doubt about that.

I completely agree! This is precisely why I pointed out the problem of "lazy" thinking. Because we know humans work this way, we all, particularly journalists, should be very aware that what we say will influence how people think. I went on to say this placed an even heavier burden of responsibility on the media.

As highly aware as I am of how people process information, I find it close to criminally negligent for a reporter to present two views, one of which the journalist almost surely knows to be false, rather than to tell the facts as they know them and be clear about their viewpoint. It's nearly as bad as deliberate deception; in fact, it's a form of deliberate deception that simply allows the reporter a disingenuous "out."

Re: Gregory. I don't have anything particular to disagree with your comments about the tv vs. written stories. But I was responding to a letter writer that wrote, "Really, how are these celebrity journalists supposed to party down with so-called republicans (who hate the republic), and then go back to reporting the truth about the GOP''s corruption, incompetence, and lies? Oh yeah, they can't (and don't, and never have)." It was the "never have" that vexed me; please take my defense in context of that.

Also, since many more people get their news through television rather than the written word (although the internet may be evening the gap slightly), what these reporters say in press conferences and interviews is indeed important.

Check this out for statistics on where people find news:

http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2006/printable_magazines_publicattitudes.asp