I don't think Rago has spent much time on blogs or he'd know that several specialize in, and are very good at, taking on complex topics that the mainstream media barely skim.

A response to the WSJ editorial.

I don't think Rago has spent much time on blogs or he'd know that several specialize in, and are very good at, taking on complex topics that the mainstream media barely skim.

A response to the WSJ editorial.

[ Not bad, and I'm glad someone who writes for a news paper, someone on the inside, as it were, felt as I did.

Of course, I believe it's not just the internet that makes modern employees of news organizations lose it... I think they're largely either uninterested in or incapable of practicing good journalism. I give a lot of leeway as to why -- as I've said, I'm of the mind there's a lot of institutional pressure to spin a certain way and I blame that for a lot of problems we see.

The fact that the news media harped on Lieberman's false (and horribly petty) attack on Lamont isn't really proof to me that reporters don't get this newfangled interweb thing, but just one more incident in which sensationalism trumped responsibility. "Lieberman doesn't buy enough bandwidth" isn't going to sell ads. "Democrat Lamont Accused of Hacking" will.

Someone like Rago might argue that that issue got blown up because the blogs all jumped on it so fast, which reinforced the MSM and generated that feedback loop. Or perhaps blame the fact that blogs put unnatural pressure on news organizations to publish faster so they can keep up with competition.

Too bad, I say. If you want to be seen as purveyors of reasoned analysis and verisimilitude, then spend the extra time, and do it right. People will respect that. Joining the mob isn't going to work. -k]