..out of the dark

...and other depressing stuff.

Consider this: six years of the Bush- administration, with a singular republican majority in support, with a press that operates as a general rule as a fawning fanclub to those spouting the most radical and incomprehensibly blatant contrarian bullshit as any political operation since the invention of speech - and then this shows up. And the bloody "liberal" bloggers hail it as groundbreaking and incisive analysis (that shallt be inductive of guffaws and an abundance of risibilities at the expense of the aforementioned Administration for a lot of henceforthness). FUCK!

Listen:

The Scooter Libby leak investigation has shamed the Beltway press corps for four years running. From the moment in July 2003 when syndicated columnist Robert Novak recklessly printed the name of CIA covert agent Valerie Plame, to Judith Miller's jail time, to Bob Woodward's playing dumb, to Tim Russert's forced courtroom testimony, the media elite managed to embarrass themselves at nearly every turn, often revealing themselves as lapdogs, not watchdogs.

So it was fitting that in covering the final chapter of the Libby saga, the press, as if on cue, badly bungled the commutation story last week by often downplaying its significance, reading off White House talking points, and leaving gaping holes of context for news consumers trying to make sense of Bush's audacious power grab.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is the height - after these six years of such blatant fraud - of what can be produced by the "good" media guardians. Notice the very conscious appeal to emotion, to outrage, and to the macro- level reality of "elites" they feel so betrayed by. Where the "media" is considered, in an ideal world, as the "watchdogs", guiding the little people towards "THE TRUTH". Where the Leaders are generously asked about "things of importance", and the media dutifully reports without fear of being played like the pompous egotistical narcissists they are in their frail timidity and power- worship.

Now, juxtapose this "analysis" of the situation with this commentary on the state of journalism in the US.

And I'll guess I can leave it up to the reader to spot the subtle ways in which the two approaches differ (apart from how one is directed at the "audience", and the other at the "journalists"), and what the idea of "passion" involves when it comes to frickin' journalism in their respective approaches.

But in the end - which approach is the most appealing to the general population? Which approach has proven to be the most sure- fire way to success? Even at this point, with the current nightmare of an administration in the Whitehouse? Even with this current Congress and it's pathological lack of.. lack. Is it the approach that actually creates outrage at real issues - or is it the one that manufactures "outrage" that can be safely removed from all earthly concerns?

You be the judge. Fucking bastards.