Decius wrote:

He stabs at the political blogs and cites the anonymous critic, saying "Some critics reproach the blogs for the coarsening and increasing volatility of political life."

Hearing the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal accuse someone else of blind partisanship is like hearing Phillip Morris talk about the need for safer consumer products.

Indeed, though, in fairness, I don't think he was speaking so much to the partisanship as much as the level of the discourse. Deep partisanism is a pre-requisite for that, but I think this guy would like to hold on to the notion of civilized partisanship. It's a fools errand of course, because if the basline is "this person is morally wrong" then civility is that much harder to hold on to.

It's all bullshit, because civility and respect are the very things that have been eroding of late, and that's largely, i feel, because the MSM isn't wearing any clothes. They purport to be balanced and civil and calm, but the people are seeing through that. If you want to destroy civil discourse, demonstrate that it's worthless by parodying it in the guise of practicing it.

I've said before, I'd rather hear from a raving fanatic whose position is clear and unequivocal than from a moderate sounding "journalist" whose credentials and background are unknown, whose corporate culture is likely bent either along political lines or else so mired in the need to be marketable that they can't be objective. Obviously I'd *prefer* to hear from a dedicated, honest and skillful journalist. I'm just not sure how many of those are left, and sadly the system is so untrustworthy in my eyes, I have a tougher and tougher time finding them.

RE: Why Blogs Suck | WSJ