SomeNYguy: (I'm also a NY guy, by the way): Actually, I did mean to write "ungarnished reality," although I am aware of the term "unvarnished reality." A garnish is meant to "pretty up" a serving of food, so "garnished reality" would be spin, a presentation of events dressed, to present a predetermined picture. "Ungarnished reality" refers to the facts unprettied or undressed. It means essentially the same thing as "unvarnished reality."

A small point, perhaps not worth making, not sure - the Washington Post poll example is not really an example of reporters accepting/regurgitating government-provided information uncritically. If I understood, this was not a government-sponsored poll, although the poll results arguably reflect the, um, party line.

A slightly bigger point, perhaps, is the fact that, if I understood the typology put forth by Mr. Greenwald yesterday, the new political reality is that you're either for the "radical neoconservative" viewpoint or you're against it. I'm taking liberties here, but it doesn't leave much room for choice for reporters, does it? A very, very tiny part of me wonders whether this is part of the current dilemma - because SO MUCH issuing from the government falls so easily to the critical axe, rather than run the risk of being continually critical, maybe many reporters feel compelled to take the slothful and easy way out, i.e., to simply parrot the government line.

And while its tempting to say that a being continually critical is indeed the role of the press, in these extreme circumstances, by now, we would be at the point where there's little for reporters to do but shout "LIAR!". Seriously, when was the last time Bush, Cheney or Snow (to take 3 leading examples) spoke a word of anything even remotely resembling an objective truth?

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. ~ GG

But, of course, the right-wing machine has its very own set of facts to every issue.

There was a recent discussion about the parallel universe they’ve set up (of news sources, think tanks, blogs, pseudo-scientific experts etc.) and whether or not that was a strength or a weakness to the Republican Party and the “conservative” movement. [1]

My take on it is that in its ascendancy it was a strength, but now it has become a weakness precisely because their “facts” have now collided so dramatically with reality that most people capable of even minimal critical thinking have now abandoned or are in the process of leaving the GOP as recent polls have demonstrated.

Kevin Drum expressed skepticism about this point of view, pointing out that American liberals seemed to be “pretty entranced by the success of all those right-wing thinktanks and radio bloviators” that make up the spin machine. And that is true.

However, what Kevin misses is that the attempts to build an alternative infrastructure would not be based upon creating facts out of nothing to support the a “leader” or a political party, but upon actual evidence. And more importantly, it would value critical thinking, and its purpose would be to expose the facts the Government tries to conceal – regardless of the party affiliation of the administration.

It is true that everyone views the world through certain biases, but it is also true that if you are capable of evaluating the evidence critically (rather than mouthing a party line) the way you view an event or conflict can change and evolve.

That’s what the infrastructure on the right is incapable of doing and why it is ultimately a weakness – and why their “base” is contracting and getting more and more extreme. They don’t want people to think; they want them to repeat rehearsed talking points.

And those talking points no longer make any sense for the majority of the people. The more “mainstream” media mouth those same talking points the more they too are losing their credibility. And it is a process that has just begun. That the editor of Politico felt it necessary to respond to Glenn’s criticism is just one such indicator of that change.

[1] http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_03/011014.php

re: "ungarnished reality"

You convinced me. Hold the parsley.

In 2003, if you made that claim in any kind of non-partisan forum, people would laugh at you or at least debate you for claiming that.

If you go back and look at the 2000 campaign coverage Fox presented, it was blatantly obvious that they were carrying water not only for the GOP, but specifically for Bush. Fox's unashamed bias has been on display for all to see for a very long time. How do you think they get their audience?

"It is instead a demand that the media fulfill their core responsibility -- to serve as an adversarial check on government -- a responsibility which they have profoundly abdicated."

I'm not sure I agree with you on this one, Glenn. Be it Chocolate or Vanilla, the media should report the facts and then allow the public to make up their own minds regarding what those facts mean. As it is, the "media" is currently blending the job of news reporter with the job of news commentator and it is that combination which needs to stop.

Frankly, I don't care whether some commentator claims the moon is made of green cheese, as long as that commentator lets his audience know he's being paid by the dairy industry to promote cheese.

Of course, another problem is that there are currently so many incestual relationships in Washington, it's getting hard to find a reporter who isn't screwing his cousin.

Alex--

I was specifically objecting to the characterization of the general population as "lazy thinkers." While I'm certain that describes a very real part of the problem, I think there's very good evidence that a lot of other things are going on as well.

I'm pleased to learn of your expertise in this area, as I'm a lay follower of the field. As a journalist, I may be more keyed into the use of shorthand, which is what I had a problem with.

The study you describe is interesting, but hardly conclusive. The 95% figure doesn't seem to accord with studies of integrative complexity and related constructs which show much higher numbers of people capable of seeing both sides of dichotomous situations, so I would hesitate to generalize robustly from that result. Nor would I necessarily ascribe the fixedness of views to laziness, rather than other factors, such as attitudinal predisposition. Pattern-making with attitude can be much more difficult to alter than pattern-making by itself.

Either way, it is certainly true that people generally are far from the Enlightment ideal one might wish for. But the Enlightenment itself teaches us that we have to get used to it somehow, and develop ways of dealing with this less-than-ideal reality.