Is this ironic?
CBS, the mainstream media organization that so publicly jumped the gun on an unsubstantiated story about Bush's military service, pens a critique of bloggers, arguing that the self-important ramblings of web-based opinion makers herald not a new form of journalism, but instead represent an extension of the pseudo-journalistic tradition of college newspapers. (I thought my college newspaper was pretty darn good, actually.) The author then goes on to say: "It was clear to me, from following their efforts that night, that, unlike journalists, some blog operators who are quick to trash the MSM not only don’t care about the veracity of the stories they are spreading, they do not understand when there is a live hand grenade on their keyboard. They appear not to care. Their concern is for controversy and "hits.""
Someone has a short memory and a pocket full of hypocrisy. Is this not precisely the motivator of the MSM? Is this not the much-lamented reality, a complaint levied now even at the traditional news networks? Wasn't Ted Koppel on NPR a few months ago wailing about the impending partisan slide of reporting? And weren't these networks climbing all over themselves in 2000 to declare states in favor of Bush or Gore and making complete asses of themselves in the process? The horse-race reporting never ends, and neither, apparently, does the sandbox-pissing. This is the MSM trying to reclaim its mantle of "real journalism," but no one will be fooled. There's no such thing as fair and balanced reporting, no evidence of unbiased information delivery. No one is an automaton, and so no representation of the facts can ever be completely objective. That's just the way it is baby, and to claim otherwise is simply to emulate an ostrich.