[I still care]

“But if I was head of the DNC, I would be quietly rooting for it,” Dean said provoking some laughter from those gathered at the event.”

Ah, yes. All us democrats secretly snigger and take pleasure in a government shutdown - isn’t this fun. The MSM and Dems are all one big, happy family.

If there is anything that has disgusted me over the past few years, it has been the way the media is merely an extension of the Democrat Party. It’s like living in the USSR.

[Viking2002]

'If there is anything that has disgusted me over the past few years, it has been the way the media is merely an extension of the Democrat Party. It’s like living in the USSR.'

That's another front in the cold civil war. I'm no scholar of FCC regs, but I truly wonder just how fast and loose the lamestream media types are playing with the rules that govern them. The Left beats us over the head with the likes of the Fairness Doctrine and Net Neutrality, and our dull-eyed RINO castrati just sit there and take it for the most part, but you can bet that if we even considered going after them on Constitutional grounds, it would be a First Amendment can o' worms that nobody in our current political environment would have the guts to open. (Not that they have the guts to do anything else but bend over and grab ankles, it seems.) Just imagine the shrieking and wailing that would ensue if they got called on the carpet in front of Congress, or whatever federal appendage of dubious usefulness that would address it - they're already apoplectic that we're trying to pry NPR off the public teat. As long as the likes of CPAC, the RNC, and K Street control the agenda, we're going to get more of the same. It's going to take some very distasteful guerrilla tactics - the same as the Left has used for two decades - to break the domestic stranglehold, and I'm open to ideas. The Tea Party is a start, but it's not going to be our political or social Alpha and Omega, only a cannon in the arsenal.

"But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: for men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away, for his name is Obama."

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

If there is anything that has disgusted me over the past few years, it has been the way the media is merely an extension of the Democrat Party. It’s like living in the USSR.

Indeed; understanding that phenomenon has been my major interest for quite a long time.
My conclusions are:

• Nobody can safely take their own, or anyone else's, objectivity for granted. Indeed, taking one's own objectivity for granted is precisely what subjectivity is, and that's the opposite of objectivity.

• The only way to attempt objectivity is to eschew any claim of objectivity and to explicitly disclose any interest one may have in any case they discuss. This journalists never do; they are far too busy promoting themselves to ever do that.

• Yet journalists do have identifiable interests apart from the public interest:
  • promoting themselves,
  • raising alarums over the results of everyone else's decisions/actions - everyone who does not flatter journalists, that is, and
  • reciprocating the flattery of those who flatter journalists. This explains the relationship between journalists and those whom journalism labels "moderate" or "liberal" or "progressive".

• It follows that journalists, all protestations of dispassion notwithstanding, are not even trying to be objective.

• Journalism as a profession was not ideologically homogeneous in the founding era but it is ideologically homogeneous today - and has been for well over a century. The reason for the change is hiding in plain sight - News service journalism. The Associated Press (founded in 1848 as The New York Associated Press) is monopolistic, and it functions as a Borg which gives the journalist what he wants - an endless stream of news which the public hasn't heard yet, and the suppression of any competition over objectivity. All at the cost, not only of money, but the surrender of the independence to be able to question the objectivity of any other journalist.

The Right to Know