That’s what Dick Morris says happened in the 2004 election:

The defeat of the networks in the war of CBS versus the bloggers is one of the most dramatic illustrations of this new political dynamic. All of Dan Rather

That’s what Dick Morris says happened in the 2004 election:

The defeat of the networks in the war of CBS versus the bloggers is one of the most dramatic illustrations of this new political dynamic. All of Dan Rather

…that at least one major MSM publication, The Economist, seems to actually understand the blogosphere.

The erosion of the old media establishment probably does entail some shift to the right, if only because so many of the newer voices are more reliably pro-Republican than Mr Rather. But the new media are simply too anarchic and subversive for any single political faction to take control of them. There are plenty of leftish bloggers too: such people helped Howard Dean’s presidential campaign. And the most successful conservative bloggers are far from being party loyalists: look at the way in 2002 that they kept the heat on the Republicans’ then Senate leader, Trent Lott, for racist remarks that the New York Times originally buried. It is a safe bet that, if the current Bush administration goes the way of previous second-term administrations and becomes consumed by scandals, conservative bloggers will be in the forefront of the scandal-mongering.

Mr Rather’s passing does not mean that the liberal orthodoxy is about to give way to a new conservative one. It means that all orthodoxies are being chewed up by a voraciously unpredictable news media, which is surely all to the good.

Fox News is suing the bucktoothed moron for trademark infringement. Looks like they have a pretty good case.

Franken’s ”intent is clear to exploit Fox News’ trademark, confuse the public as to the origins of the book and, accordingly, boost sales of the book,” the suit said.

Calls to Penguin and Franken’s publicist were not immediately returned. The book is due out next month.

[Update on Tuesday afternoon]

Eugene Volokh thinks that Fox has a weak case. And another law professor thinks it’s “asinine.”

Oh, well. I report, you decide.

The American public thinks that Fox News is a more reliable source for news than the New York Times. Fewer than half think the Gray Lady credible.

The bleeding continues, with no sign that Pinch gets it.

[Update at 3:30 PM PDT]

Semi-pro Krugman watcher Don Luskin points out none of the Times’ editorial writers have degrees in the subjects on which they pontificate.

The American public thinks that Fox News is a more reliable source for news than the New York Times. Fewer than half think the Gray Lady credible.

The bleeding continues, with no sign that Pinch gets it.

[Update at 3:30 PM PDT]

Semi-pro Krugman watcher Don Luskin points out none of the Times’ editorial writers have degrees in the subjects on which they pontificate.

The American public thinks that Fox News is a more reliable source for news than the New York Times. Fewer than half think the Gray Lady credible.

The bleeding continues, with no sign that Pinch gets it.

[Update at 3:30 PM PDT]

Semi-pro Krugman watcher Don Luskin points out none of the Times’ editorial writers have degrees in the subjects on which they pontificate.

KLo over at NRO points out this story about the Clinton Presidential Library, and a proposal to have a fact-checking version of it just down the street. The people who propose to do this are referred to, of course, as “Clinton haters,” including one usage of that phrase in the headline.

I wonder if the WaPo would run an article calling Bob Graham, or Charlie Rangel, or Dennis Kucinich, or Howard Dean, or Terry McAuliffe “Bush haters”?

Apparently no one is allowed to have a negative opinion about the Clintons, or criticize them, without “hating” them (see the comments section of the post).

This is, of course, simply ad hominem, and a deceitful attempt (unfortunately, often successful) to avoid dealing with the facts. As I said in the comments section of that post, what would these people do if the word “hate” were removed from their vocabulary? Perhaps they’d actually have to have a (losing) debate on the merits (or lack thereof) of their case.

KLo over at NRO points out this story about the Clinton Presidential Library, and a proposal to have a fact-checking version of it just down the street. The people who propose to do this are referred to, of course, as “Clinton haters,” including one usage of that phrase in the headline.

I wonder if the WaPo would run an article calling Bob Graham, or Charlie Rangel, or Dennis Kucinich, or Howard Dean, or Terry McAuliffe “Bush haters”?

Apparently no one is allowed to have a negative opinion about the Clintons, or criticize them, without “hating” them (see the comments section of the post).

This is, of course, simply ad hominem, and a deceitful attempt (unfortunately, often successful) to avoid dealing with the facts. As I said in the comments section of that post, what would these people do if the word “hate” were removed from their vocabulary? Perhaps they’d actually have to have a (losing) debate on the merits (or lack thereof) of their case.

KLo over at NRO points out this story about the Clinton Presidential Library, and a proposal to have a fact-checking version of it just down the street. The people who propose to do this are referred to, of course, as “Clinton haters,” including one usage of that phrase in the headline.

I wonder if the WaPo would run an article calling Bob Graham, or Charlie Rangel, or Dennis Kucinich, or Howard Dean, or Terry McAuliffe “Bush haters”?

Apparently no one is allowed to have a negative opinion about the Clintons, or criticize them, without “hating” them (see the comments section of the post).

This is, of course, simply ad hominem, and a deceitful attempt (unfortunately, often successful) to avoid dealing with the facts. As I said in the comments section of that post, what would these people do if the word “hate” were removed from their vocabulary? Perhaps they’d actually have to have a (losing) debate on the merits (or lack thereof) of their case.