GG,

It is indeed fascinating to see the electronic journalism niche space being filled from opposite directions. One component being those coming from the blogosphere, the other from established media. Perhaps there are other waves of immigration that I don't know of.

You close by referring to the stresses currently torquing the media, including the practice of access journalism and abandonment of journalistic principles. But I am also reminded of what was made very clear in Frontline's excellent series, Media Wars. In that series, it seemed abundantly clear that a major stress, possibly THE major stress on news organizations, was being introduced via unreasonable expectations regarding profit margins. The Tribune Corp. was used as the prime example, in which 20% profit margins typical at LA Times were viewed as 'just not enough'.

While your piece was centered on ethics and political orientation, it's important also to remember the tremendous--and needless-- stress being placed by corporations upon those who generate news content.

... Mr. Hiatt meets Mr. Freud.

From the lead editorial in today's Washington Post, ironically titled "Candor at the Capitol," arguing yet again that "there is no hard evidence of underlying wrongdoing" in the burgeoning U.S. Attorneys scandal:

Mr. Sampson testified that "some were asked to resign because they were not carrying out the president's and the attorney general's priorities." If true, that's perfectly acceptable. Wrongdoing would consist of firing attorneys to derail political corruption prosecutions of Republicans or because of a failure to improperly pursue Democrats.

Read that last part again:

Wrongdoing would consist of firing attorneys ... because of a failure to improperly pursue Democrats.

That tortured locution gives Fred's game away: "right-doing" demands that the USAs act aggressively and conscientiously to improperly pursue Democrats.

That was supposed to be "Mr. Hiatt meets Dr. Freud." My own slip showing?

Bob Barr just took a job as a lobbyist for the Marijuana Policy Project. Yes, THAT Bob Barr -- the very same man who back in 1999 wrote the amendment to the spending bill that invalidated the results of the District of Columbia ballot initiative legalizing medical marijuana.

The initiative passed with 69% of the vote, by the way. It takes a lot of chutzpah to ban something wanted by 69% of the voters.

The very first announcement of his new job was made on the front of page of Politico.

But something happened -- who knows what -- and the story was pulled within hours.

Here is a link to the archived story at cannabisnews.com:

http://cannabisnews.com/news/22/thread22816.shtml

Could they have pulled the story because of this statement made by Barr?

In light of the tremendous growth of government power since 9/11, it has forced me and other conservatives to go back and take a renewed look at how big and powerful we want the government to be in people's lives.

I wish Greenwald would ask Harris why this story got pulled so soon after it was posted.

By the way, wouldn't it be nice if the Democrats could get 69% of the popular vote in the next election?

Your points are well taken but ignore whether there is a dominant underlying factor that continually skews national media behavior. May I suggest that having a corporate media & wealthy individuals owning the media creates a right wing tilt toward how the news is presented. These are people aligned with the Republican Party, believe in laissez faire, and look at social programs as being a problem.

The consequence is that 1) unions are not part of the national discussion 2) Democrats are harshly criticized while Republican malfeasance is downplayed 3) economic conditions of the bottom half of the nation are underreported 4) corporate illegalities are poo-pooed.

Reporters do not operate in a vacuum. They are hired by a news organization, guided by editors & understand what is considered good performance. They thus tilt the way the news organization expect them to tilt.

access journalism, political monopoly; propaganda internalization; DC Stockholm Syndrome

They put it back up today. Someone must have complained. But it's just a link now. It was featured more prominently yesterday before it vanished.

Over the past couple years, the idea that Fox has not only a conservative bias, but a specifically Republican one has grown in acceptance. 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.

Now, except by a few fringe conservatives, this is widely accepted.

So it seems natural to me that with the loss of the "objective" mask of their main news outlet, the Right needs a new star, and the Politico seems to be stepping up to the role with gusto.

The right simply cannot survive without biased institutions that have a veneer of credibility outside their sphere to promote their ideas. If it wasn't the politico stepping up, it would be something else.

The virus has evolved and we'll need a new antidote.

Glenn,

In your exchange, you wrote:

My criticism of the press is based on my sincere belief that it is supposed to play a critical role -- but has abdicated its responsibility -- to serve as a watchdog over our government and to check abuses of power by political leaders. I don't think journalists should promote partisan storylines or promote any political agenda. I think they ought to fulfill the function the founders envisioned, because our country's political health would be substantially improved. That's what motivates my media criticism.

While I agree completely with the first sentence, my view of the second, bolded sentence is more divided, particularly since it does not fully accord with how journalism was actually practiced in the founders' time.

For example, while crime beats are a traditional part of daily journalism--both print and broadcast--an environmental crime beat reporter would of necessity promote a political agenda, as does Corporate Crime Reporter, as well:

http://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/

Indeed, once one has assimilated the extent of such crimes, and realized their magnitude in terms of lives and money lost, it begins to appear that constant reporting of street crime has a political agenda as well--which is to distract attention from crimes committed by those with much more social power than your average murderer or serial rapist. (This is not to claim the purpose is conscious or intentional. Social purposes need not be conscious on the individual level; nonetheless a political agenda is served.)

This is actually a rather mild example. If one looks back at 18th century journalism, virtually all that one finds is partisan, to some degree or another. The Federalist Papers were published in federalist papers--newspapers that consistently favored the establishment of a federal government, and the interests who were most committed to that end. While the founders originally imagined a system free of partisan divisions, such divisions already existed in society and were reflected in the press before they solidified in the form of political parties.

Indeed, the Federalist regime of John Adams very much imagined itself to be purely American, and regarded its opponents as disloyal Americans, rather than as representing another valid political point of view--much like the Bush regime today. It was the Democratic-Republican press--lead by the Philadelphia Aurora--which played a crucial role in rallying opposition to the Federalists with their Alien and Sedition Acts, which in turn were used to put a number of Democratic-Republican publisher/editors into jail (along with one Congressman, who was re-elected while in prison).

This same model continued throughout the 19th Century, which is why there can still be found papers in smaller markets with the word "Democrat" in their names--such as the Santa Rosa Press-Democrat, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, etc.

The emergence of our current non-partisan model traces back to the late 19th century, when advertising revenues began outstripping subscription revenue. Advertisers wanted a larger market for their ads--papers which appealed to people across partisan lines. What the commercial pressures wanted, the "objective" "non-partisan" model rationalized. Yet, as my previous remarks about crime reporting indicate, this did not mean an end to political agendas--merely a relative submergence of them.

Where I'm headed with all this is simple: political agendas are, to a certain extent, not only unavoidable, but sometimes quite positive in their effects. The same is even more true of ideological agendas. What's important is not to automatically try to banish such agendas. Rather, it's to become aware of them, and to consciously evaluate where they are or are not beneficial. In particular, when it comes to ideology, the most important distinction is whether a journalist or publication has an ideology, or whether the ideology has them. The more that journalists are in denial about their ideologies, the more firmly those ideologies have them in their grip.