These thoughts on journalistic messages being shaped in a conservative direction by a desire not to lose "access" provide a lesson to progressives.

And despite the concept of "working the refs" being out there for years, progressive leadership apparently still doesn't get it.

Witness:

1 Nevada democrats had to be hounded aggressively by the progressive netroots before they called off their 2008 democratic party presidential debate on Fox.

2 Meanwhile, the CBC has scheduled it's own debate with Fox.

The point is: What message does Fox take from the fact that the CBC has agreed to do a debate with them? The message is: "It's ok for you to continue to malign me once I'm off camera. Don't worry, I'll still let you talk with me even after you malign me."

The fact that it was the netroots pushing this issue and NOT political leadership provides a view of how profound our progressive message problem is.

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”

-Upton Sinclair

There is clearly an over-arching (and repugnant) trend in journalism, as Glenn points out, even if we cannot parse every single angle at once or reduce all of them into one generalist statement. (Although, the Sinclair quote does a pretty darned good job.)

What is interesting in this case, and perhaps to the point of the quote, is the lack of relative analysis Mr Harris' emails display. I don't wish to parse his every last word as he wrote them, but I do wish to point out how astonishing it is that he doesn't appear to realize how unique (so as to cast skeptical eye upon it) The Politico's current situation is.

Having been in the Internet & media space since 1995, I know that no matter how star-studded the management team, a fledgling company does not achieve in two months anywhere near the same impact -- broadly or narrowly -- that a company like the New York Times has from over 150 years as a globally-recognized brand. (If nothing else, Mr Harris' mention of the Times is pure hubris, thus emblematic of the 'insider' journalist mindset.)

While I am not accusing Mr Harris of lying about a "deal" with Drudge, I am still waiting for a more satisfactory (or even reasonably understandable) explanation of the blinding attention given to his company by a single source. Even the most cautious, forgiving read of his response results in Mr Harris effectively saying, "It just happened; nothing to see here."

That Matt Drudge has simply taken a shine to The Politico (for whatever reason) is preposterous. Not only, as Mr Greenwald points out, has Drudge been historically predisposed against Internet media (left, right or center), but he has never (to my knowledge) singled out a particular content provider so suddenly, prominently and frequently as to be at the expense of other, certainly more established, media outlets.

If there be a story here, it is twofold: We probably won't ever get an answer that is, by common measures, straightforward; As such, it only serves to reflect on how "success" of the media is not dependent upon its transparency.

Junior Bush's favorable singling out of Politico told me all I needed to know about it. But two other related occurrences during this past week were particularly disturbing:

1. David Gregory and Brian Williams frollicking on stage with Rove and Bush Jr. at this year's Colbert-less White House Stenographers Dinner. 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).

2. Richard Wolffe, whom Glenn has previously criticized, appeared on 'Countdown' and regurgitated word for word the GOP party line. To wit: the Dems MUST get serious and "fund the troops" very quickly, or else be blamed for "losing the war." It apparently never occurred to Wolffie that Bush-Cheney ought to start listening to We the People and end their disastrous occupation of Iraq.

Seriously, the main lesson of the Internet Age is that talented outsiders do a much better job of seeing clearly and reporting truthfully than do the pals of Rove and Bush Jr.

A number of years ago, a good friend was a reporter at what was the largest paper in Anchorage, Alaska. The paper was purchased by a corporate media company and all the managers went off to school.

They came back with corporate crap like everyone can apply for anyone's job. This resulted in lowering of standards and they also rearranged desks so reporters could spy on each other.

Within 2 years the paper folded.

I see this as destruction of an institution which is essential for our democracy. This isn't just corporate greed, although the management practices described above are used to terrible results in many places. This is a planned destruction of the independent media in the USA.

If things are to improve in this country, then citizens are going to have to take it upon themselves to educate theirselves about the nature of democracy - how it works, how it is supposed to work, why it isn't working, etc.

The media is failing Americans in this regard, but as long as we have public libraries democracy is still alive.

One of the most fundamental issues facing us is the poverty of the press. If you're upset by what is besetting the country, then one should be motivated to make the effort to figure out what is wrong with journalism, and then start communicating that info to you friends, family, neighbors ... to your community.

When you see something wrong with your local news (tv, print, or radio) write a letter, go to a local meeting, etc. That's what it is going to take. Democracy is going to have to be re-built from the bottom up ...

That being said, I have two recommendations;

http://www.amazon.com/Elements-Journalism-Newspeople-Should-Public/dp/0609806912

That's a short book that explain journalism and its relation to democracy. Can be read in an afternoon but will increase your appreciation/understanding of what's wrong with today's news and give you a means of explaining this to other people.

http://www.benbagdikian.com/

That's the New Media Monopoly by Ben Bagdikian, former editor of the Washinton Post. He's been sounding the alarm about the decline of journalism since the early 1980s when he was dismissed as paranoid.

That website has a Q & A and excerpts and what not.

Saving democracy is going to require some personal investment. If you can find 30 minutes, an hour, two hours ... whatever - to devote to democracy a week that can make a difference.