Anti-Climacus

:which raises the question of exactly what this amorphous thing called the media really is. Clearly, Mr. Hucul fails to understand there's a huge difference in methods and intents in various wings of the printed world. For the record, Woodward and Bernstein wrote for the Washington Post, which is a newspaper, and as such is compelled to write about news. The American Prospect, for which the article at the center of this brouhaha was written, is a political journal, and, unsurprisingly, consists of articles meant to advocate or rationalize certain ideological viewpoints. The source is important when you want to ascribe intent!
And then there's this:

"I will bet anyone $5 that they ignore the lack of enforcement of laws to punish corporate thieves, our growing reliance on middle eastern oil (hurray for SUVs), the failure to negotiate peace between Israel and Palestine, the pitiful leadership in the CIA, FBI, and INS, the growing influence of not-so-noble special interest groups through soft money contributions to political parties, the national debt, and a slew of other issues."

Which shows nothing if not the complete and total unwillingness to ever browse the front page of the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, or any other major paper across the country. Miscellaneous points: our reliance on Middle Eastern oil is decreasing, not increasing, as exploration is being opened up across Russia and in South America, Palestinians (or at least their leaders) have shown complete and total contempt not just for the peace process, but the concepts of freedom, public safety, and anything short of a thugocracy run by militant Islamists (yes, let's do negotiate with them!), then there's the fact that soft money contributions will be outlawed after this election cycle (and apparently a short historical memory, too-- read a speech by Teddy Roosevelt).

And, of course, you can read about any of those issues in a week of reading the Times-- but you already knew that.