The MSM has become a poitical party. They all want to play "Watergate".
You are exactly right. Ever since woodward and bernstein, every branch of the media, print, TV, and Radio, has tried to find something that would top it, and hasn't been able to. They have resorted to making stuff up, or sensationalizing a story- memogate, abu Ghraib, quran desecration, et al.
. . . and if The Washington Post wants to be a political party, that's fine. After all, Hamilton and Jefferson sponsor competing newspapers in which they waged their partisan battles. And that basically started the political party system in America. So under the First Amendment I think that is perfectly legitimate.The framers of the Constitution had hoped - see the original scheme whereby the second-place finisher of the presidential election would be the Vice President - not for a two-party system but to avoid altogether what they denigrated as "faction." And if you think about it, the FCC with its licensees purported to broadcast "in the public interest as a public trustee" is founded on the same conceit.
But the historical reality is that, as Socrates would have told you, claiming to be virtuous is the epitome of arrogance. So when the FCC or its licensees follow the example of the MSM newspapers and claim to be "objective," they express mere arrogance, not virtue. And whereas it is clearly OK if the Washington Post is a political party, when an Establishment arises which coheres in a mutual defense pact against flame wars among major newspapers and broadcast networks the result is a single, monopolistically inclined political party. An Establishment political party which praises conformity as "objectivity" - and even (in the mode of a Ward Churchill) "dissent". An establishment of the rich and powerful, founded on contempt for responsibility and the middle class and a patronizing claim to represent "the poor."
The Democratic Party is the party of George Soros and the irresponsible rich, eager to use their wealth to promote the idea of their own virtue with insincere solidarity with "the poor." And who are "the poor?" They are Americans who would as a class be ill-advised to trade the things they have which are made of plastic - or which run on electricity, natural gas, diesel oil, or gasoline - and all their access to scientific health care, for all the wealth of Queen Victoria).