is entirely right, and on the occasion of his post, I say again that the culturally and socially liberal leanings of many reporters cannot begin to overwhelm the reflexive, self-congratulatory political anti-leftism of the national media. Many people, foremost “a little criticism for column A/a little for column B”-style Broderist centrists like Conor Clark, have taken the occasion of the health care debate and town hall lunacy to say that both sides have crazies, and that they are exactly the same in number and influence, and on and on. That sort of pleasant fantasy is destructive enough simply for how it occludes our understanding of reality, but it’s particularly a problem because, as Greenwald ably describes, the factual accuracy of the opinions of one side or the other’s more vocal members has no bearing on how they are treated by the media and blogosphere.
Update: From the comments of Greenwald’s piece:
“The Maturation Cycle of Bush Administration Scandals
1. Crazy, hysterical, paranoid accusation by wild-eyed, partisan, left-wing loonies.
2. Old news.”
Exactly right. When stories like this first came out, they were the opinions of crazed, socialist loons, according to our media. When they are proven to be true, hey, who cares. Yesterday’s news.
Why, it’s almost enough to make you doubt whether the media actually has a liberal bias….