Kathy Shaidle spots “big picture ‘progressives’ obsessed with minutiae of the past”:
Today, words mean whatever leftists decide they mean, and those meanings are subject to change without notice, a la 1984.
For instance: during the Bush Administration, “dissent” was “the highest form of patriotism” (a quotation commonly granted the unimpeachable imprimatur of that otherwise “evil slave owner” and “dead white male” Thomas Jefferson, but which was actually uttered by, er, Marxist “historian” Howard Zinn.)
Suddenly though, what with all those huge conservative protests sweeping America, we’ve been solemnly informed that “dissent” is now the “lowest form of racism.”
These revised definitions are handed down from on high from people who call themselves “progressives.” But have you ever noticed how stubbornly these forward-thinking agents of change cling to an often mythical past?
Case in point: today Media Matters, the self-appointed progressive media watchdog, bravely blasted the New York Times for an article the paper ran … back at the beginning of this century.
We’ll leave aside the embarrassing fact that a single share of NYT stock was recently trading at about the same price as a copy of the paper. Media Matters’ Jamison Foser enthuses this morning that, “Six years after hyping a trend, NYT finally examines its downside.”
Click over to see groundbreaking story from 2003 that Media Matters’ intense investigation blows the doors wide open on.
Meanwhile, Matt Welch spots “An ACORN in the Media’s _____”:
Your mileage will vary, but for my money the most entertaining part of the ACORN undercover video sting–which, dollar for dollar, has been the most impactful piece of journalism this year (that I’m aware of anyway)–is watching Respectable News Outlets approach the controversy with radiation-resistant tongs.
After numerous quotes from MSM gatekeepers as they remove the ACORNs from their fundaments, Welch adds:
These gatekeepery examples of pretzel logic are by no means monolithic–see Jon Stewart, or Ken Silverstein at Harpers, for example. But they illustrate a tendency that’s been mostly dominant since long before Matt Drudge published information about Monica Lewinsky’s dress: Newspapers, especially those with national aspirations, still lack the ability to process or even talk about news that emanates from frowned-upon pockets in the great media ecosystem. And in hiding behind the shield of News Judgment, they all too frequently advertise the fact that theirs is being proven inadequate.
At Pajamas HQ, Jim Kearney has some thoughts on how to create additional media diversification.
PJ Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that PJ Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. Please note that comments are reviewed by the editorial staff and may not be posted immediately. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pjmedia.com.