Our famously free press is corrupt and useless to a self-governing people because it fails at two separate places on the masthead.

First, the reporters (stenographers) write the stories, according to journalistic practices (malpractices). Some have integrity (Walter Pincus, Seymour Hersh; Helen Thomas); many do not (Steno Sue Schmidt; Judy "Kneepads" Miller; Jeff Gerth). Back in the day, reporters were working stiffs, like you and me; then along came the teebee, and some of them became millionaires and started pissing the halls of Versailles on the Potomac. Sometimes, the reporters are amenable to pressure from the reality based community, depending on their level of integrity. [I need to write a post on the distinction between the winger media critique, and ours. The critiques are different in kind, so reaction to "pressure" shouldn't be to split the difference, because you can't split the difference between an apple and an orange.]

Second, editors handle the headlines, assign the stories, and place (or bury) them. The stenographers are a terrible problem, but the editors are worse, because they're the managers. And unfortunately, the editors aren't nearly as visible as the reporters, who have to put their names on what they write, so it's much more difficult to hold them accountable. I don't know what to do about this.

[Third would be owners like FUX's Murdoch, who is about to rape and pillage the Wall Street Journal newsroom, but let's not go there this post.]

A story in the LA Times shows both problems.

First, editor's responsibility. "The Telltale Head":

Edwards puts on a brave campaign face

It's a two-fer, isn't it? Not only does it call Edwards a loser, it feminizes Edwards by saying he's not man enough to--John Wayne-like--successfully conceal his feelings.*

And now, "The Hair Paragraph." Eight down:

Such are the trials of John Edwards. His main Democratic rivals, Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, have bested him thus far in fundraising and national polling. A $400 haircut has generated [Note passive voice!] more buzz than many of his policy

Nice use of the passive voice! Why and how was that "buzz" generated, one wonders? Could it have been... The press itself? Bien sur!

Some definitions:

The Hair Paragraph: [Accountability: Reporter] That point in a story where an unsourced personality-driven meme that feminizes Democrats is inserted, making it clear that the story is not analysis, not reportage, not even stenography, but a hit piece. Often, the key sentence in the hair paragraph is in the passive voice, as a consequence of being unsourced. Also, the writer will often specialize in that sort of piece; John Solomon, for example, wrote the mother of all hair paragraphs in his first hit piece on Edwards using that techqnique. Oddly, or not, there are no writers specializing in hit pieces on Republicans. I wonder why?

The Telltale Head: [Accountability: Editor] The kind of headline that announces a Hair Paragraph is to come, and uses the same personality-driven, feminizing techniques.

I honestly don't know what to do about this. But I do know two things:

1. We will never, never get a fair shake from these guys. Not in a million years. They are open about their bias and, as with Gore, they want to Republicans to win.

2. The more they try to take Edwards down, the more I think he's the right man for the job. Anybody who the courtiers of Versailles on the Potomac are against is probably the one the country needs.

Actually, I'm taken with that notion of "The Hair Paragraph," although I suppose after WaPo's coverage of Hillary, I could call it the tits paragraph.

Nice parlor games, eh?

Deconstruct The Telltale Head!

Spot The Hair Paragraph!

* OK, OK, weird definition of manhood. I'm a WASP, OK?