One more and I’m out. Really. His Lordship the Grey One asks:

I’m not really quite sure who qualifies as “people who run campaigns,” but over the past few years I’ve had several people tell me that it’s part of the accepted rulebook that low level congressional and campaign staffers aren’t subject to the same kind of scrutiny - either by journalists or political operatives - that high level people and actual politicians are. There is a recognition, or was, that barring egregious criminal conduct or similar young people in relatively unimportant positions aren’t really “newsmakers” and therefore can’t really make news. Obviously blogging and the internet generally has made a mess of what were traditionally understood public and private spaces, but I’m still not sure why anyone working on a campaign is subject to the type of scrutiny which they were previously largely immune from.

Oh yes you do. This is what we love about blogging: we can drape the most important questions under the cloack of snark. It’s not about “anyone working on a campaign,” it’s about those who become the target of the winger attack machine. And I’ve never used words more in earnest. See my very Civil post over at the Edwards blog. Why are we being attacked? Because we’re making a difference, and saying the “unspeakable.” Loudly, proudly, and most importantly, factually with the appropriate links. Scrutiny has not standards, it has masters. Paying ones. If it were a boatload of sinless, Christian grannies saying what Amanda and bloggers have said (Granny D, anyone?) the VRWC would still instruct their sycophants in the SCLM to bash them. That is the problem in the media today. It is by no objective means, “free,” “fair,” “balanced,” or independent. Shill-watching is fun project for us on the blogosphere, but I fear there are only hard questions and harder solutions about how to deal with those who maintain the illusion that most can/should “trust the press.”

That battle is coming, and soon.