<> = "does not equal", since I can't make the equal sign with a slash through it on my computer.

In Balz's next installment, lying = alternate worldview!

Orwell would be proud!

is an absolute sh-t-head.  

A couple weeks ago he wrote a story about the McCain vetting process where he said that they had the FBI perform a background check on Palin as part of a thorough process.

Did Balz check with the FBI to see if this was true?  Of course not -- he took the statement on faith and ran the statement as if it was true on the front page.  Of course a couple days later the statement was debunked.  Did he vet the "thorough" claim that the campaign was spinning?  You know ask to see some emails on the issue or phone records -- evidence to support the claim.  Of course he didn't.

Balz has his heart in the right place -- he'll give both sides a hearing.  He'll even apply false balance to an article just so that people don't call him "biased".  But he strikes me as an easy mark for political campaigns to manipulate -- I don't think they respect him.  

The way that the McCain people show reporters respect is by denying them access.  They fear scrutiny.  On the other hand, the McCain people seem to come first to Balz when they have a story.  There's a reason.

that there's a difference between being an objective journalist, and being the dummy in a ventriloquist act.

You'd think the arm up your ass would be the first clue, but I guess that's too subtle for him.  

I don't get it.

For a veteran reporter I'd think he'd be a lot more skeptical about his sources.  I'm surprised that his editors don't push him harder on some of these.  His coverage though has been pretty unenlightening.  

Our establishment press in this country is a disgrace, outside of a few reporters (Dana Priest, Jim Risen, Charlie Savage). It's like a carnival barker run amok.

I maintain that people in this country aren't stupid, but they are ill-served by the corporate media and this uninformed. People are hurting for time, many try and keep up with the news and want to be responsible citizens, but between work and family and other obligations ... they don't have the time to be the news junkies that we are.

If we want to win (this year and going forward), we as neighbors and a citizen press need to figure out how to reach these types of voters and build trust and a rapport in order to reach them for political purposes.

And a clown like Dan Balz can waste his time regurgitating press releases and make six figures, and be placed above the fold on A1 in the Post. Depressing.

I think the establishment press -- especially in print reporting -- has done OK.  

I think most broadcast and cable news is just crap though.  

Part of the challenge is that these news outlets are driven by market demand -- and the Execs see the money in diversions, manufactured controversies, and glitz.  Too much risk in doing hard hitting coverage -- especially when they're big conglomerates with a lot of pressure points.

I agree with your final point that voter contact becomes especially important in this kind of media environment.  

Examples:

*One side (99.9% of scientists) says that there IS human-caused global warming. The other side (0.1% of scientists, all of whom are bought and paid for by the fossil fuel indusry), say there is NOT human-caused global warming. Therefore, give each "side" half the article.

*One side says Saddam and no connection to 9/11, the other side says he did, and the other side happens to be President Bush and VP Cheney -- therefore give equal if not greater credence to the Saddam/911 side.

*One side says Sarah Palin supported the "Bridge to Nowhere", the other side says she did not, therefore take no sides and let the reader decide for themselves, because the objective truth in this matter - that she DID support the Bridge - is too hard to put out there, violates some sort of "journalistic ethics" or something.

I think my best analogy is in criminal justice -- is a parking ticket (say, not paying the meter) as bad as murdering someone? Both cases involve breaking the law, thus they are equally illegal.

Some religious folk believe than any type of sin is equally bad in the eyes of God, so for them the two cases would actually be equivalent (or, say, using the Lord's name in vain and murdering someone).

In our Russert- or Hardball-style media environment, a lie is fine as long as you lie consistently. The soundbite 'gotcha' moment is the only sin the press will report.

Maddening.

is a family value with Republicans. Their constituency is so gullible and brainwashed that, even if the lies are proven false and the distortions malicious, the brainwashee will dismiss the truth as nothing but braying by the "librul media," and plough ahead undeterred, repeating the lies as if gospel. Over and over at the Fairfax rally I heard how Obama "hated women," for example, and that Obama is a coward, he's un-American and will raise your taxes. The media, if it does not cooperate, is brutally cowed, or individual journalists find themselves fired. So, why would not the Republicans continue on their way; any counter-attack only reinforces their determination to up the ante, providing yet more outrageous lies.

Where are the dreaded 527's with the pig ads? the celebrity phony rockstar ads? the ads making a b-i-g deal out of the huge debt Mrs. Smarty Pants left her little town and/or her unprincipled grab for earmarks and federal dollars? the ads highlighting the national deficits for which McCain voted? the ads highlighting McCain's repeated "no to veterans" votes? the ads asking just what is it that the dear Governor is selling? the ads emphasizing the subversive Alaska Independence Party she supported on the sly?  Why is the Democratic Party not giving undercover support to the Troopergate investigation so the investigators cannot be intimidated into dropping the investigation?