That’s what Dick Morris says happened in the 2004 election:

The defeat of the networks in the war of CBS versus the bloggers is one of the most dramatic illustrations of this new political dynamic. All of Dan Rather

…that at least one major MSM publication, The Economist, seems to actually understand the blogosphere.

The erosion of the old media establishment probably does entail some shift to the right, if only because so many of the newer voices are more reliably pro-Republican than Mr Rather. But the new media are simply too anarchic and subversive for any single political faction to take control of them. There are plenty of leftish bloggers too: such people helped Howard Dean’s presidential campaign. And the most successful conservative bloggers are far from being party loyalists: look at the way in 2002 that they kept the heat on the Republicans’ then Senate leader, Trent Lott, for racist remarks that the New York Times originally buried. It is a safe bet that, if the current Bush administration goes the way of previous second-term administrations and becomes consumed by scandals, conservative bloggers will be in the forefront of the scandal-mongering.

Mr Rather’s passing does not mean that the liberal orthodoxy is about to give way to a new conservative one. It means that all orthodoxies are being chewed up by a voraciously unpredictable news media, which is surely all to the good.

Fox News is suing the bucktoothed moron for trademark infringement. Looks like they have a pretty good case.

Franken’s ”intent is clear to exploit Fox News’ trademark, confuse the public as to the origins of the book and, accordingly, boost sales of the book,” the suit said.

Calls to Penguin and Franken’s publicist were not immediately returned. The book is due out next month.

[Update on Tuesday afternoon]

Eugene Volokh thinks that Fox has a weak case. And another law professor thinks it’s “asinine.”

Oh, well. I report, you decide.

The American public thinks that Fox News is a more reliable source for news than the New York Times. Fewer than half think the Gray Lady credible.

The bleeding continues, with no sign that Pinch gets it.

[Update at 3:30 PM PDT]

Semi-pro Krugman watcher Don Luskin points out none of the Times’ editorial writers have degrees in the subjects on which they pontificate.

The American public thinks that Fox News is a more reliable source for news than the New York Times. Fewer than half think the Gray Lady credible.

The bleeding continues, with no sign that Pinch gets it.

[Update at 3:30 PM PDT]

Semi-pro Krugman watcher Don Luskin points out none of the Times’ editorial writers have degrees in the subjects on which they pontificate.

The American public thinks that Fox News is a more reliable source for news than the New York Times. Fewer than half think the Gray Lady credible.

The bleeding continues, with no sign that Pinch gets it.

[Update at 3:30 PM PDT]

Semi-pro Krugman watcher Don Luskin points out none of the Times’ editorial writers have degrees in the subjects on which they pontificate.

KLo over at NRO points out this story about the Clinton Presidential Library, and a proposal to have a fact-checking version of it just down the street. The people who propose to do this are referred to, of course, as “Clinton haters,” including one usage of that phrase in the headline.

I wonder if the WaPo would run an article calling Bob Graham, or Charlie Rangel, or Dennis Kucinich, or Howard Dean, or Terry McAuliffe “Bush haters”?

Apparently no one is allowed to have a negative opinion about the Clintons, or criticize them, without “hating” them (see the comments section of the post).

This is, of course, simply ad hominem, and a deceitful attempt (unfortunately, often successful) to avoid dealing with the facts. As I said in the comments section of that post, what would these people do if the word “hate” were removed from their vocabulary? Perhaps they’d actually have to have a (losing) debate on the merits (or lack thereof) of their case.

KLo over at NRO points out this story about the Clinton Presidential Library, and a proposal to have a fact-checking version of it just down the street. The people who propose to do this are referred to, of course, as “Clinton haters,” including one usage of that phrase in the headline.

I wonder if the WaPo would run an article calling Bob Graham, or Charlie Rangel, or Dennis Kucinich, or Howard Dean, or Terry McAuliffe “Bush haters”?

Apparently no one is allowed to have a negative opinion about the Clintons, or criticize them, without “hating” them (see the comments section of the post).

This is, of course, simply ad hominem, and a deceitful attempt (unfortunately, often successful) to avoid dealing with the facts. As I said in the comments section of that post, what would these people do if the word “hate” were removed from their vocabulary? Perhaps they’d actually have to have a (losing) debate on the merits (or lack thereof) of their case.

KLo over at NRO points out this story about the Clinton Presidential Library, and a proposal to have a fact-checking version of it just down the street. The people who propose to do this are referred to, of course, as “Clinton haters,” including one usage of that phrase in the headline.

I wonder if the WaPo would run an article calling Bob Graham, or Charlie Rangel, or Dennis Kucinich, or Howard Dean, or Terry McAuliffe “Bush haters”?

Apparently no one is allowed to have a negative opinion about the Clintons, or criticize them, without “hating” them (see the comments section of the post).

This is, of course, simply ad hominem, and a deceitful attempt (unfortunately, often successful) to avoid dealing with the facts. As I said in the comments section of that post, what would these people do if the word “hate” were removed from their vocabulary? Perhaps they’d actually have to have a (losing) debate on the merits (or lack thereof) of their case.

For those who, like me, seem to be watching coverage of the Iraq situation as reported by people from a bizarro dimension, in which they speak a language very similar to English, but with subtle and confusing differences, I think that I’ve finally broken the code, and have thus put together a little translation guide for the rest of us.

“allies“:

Nations that we either defeated or liberated six decades ago, and then paid to rebuild half a century ago, and continued to pay for their defense through the Cold War, which has been over for more than a decade, who now feel that they are thereby entitled to obstruct or dictate our foreign policy, which is driven by our own self defense, in the furtherance of the business interests of their corrupt governments and the brutal dictators that they cynically coddle.

“going it alone“:

Meaning 1: Taking action in concert with numerous European and Middle-Eastern nations, and others around the globe, but without France and Germany.

Meaning 2: Using the coalition from (1) to enforce numerous UN Security Council resolutions, including one that was passed within the past three months, which was supposed to be final, without going back to the Security Council, hat in hand, to get yet another “final” resolution.

“let the inspections continue“:

Allow more time for a few dozen people to literally cluelessly wander around a country hundreds of thousands of square miles in area, searching for things that the Iraqi government has no intention of letting them find, and are hidden in private homes, or mosques, or presidential “palaces” (some of which are themselves the size of typical western cities), or in caves that we don’t even know exist, or that are moved just prior to the threat of an actual search in any of these areas, in order to continue to delay military action in the slim hope that some other means of delay can be found while this one continues, or that the weather will get too hot, or that W is so dumb that he will eventually forget why he’s doing this, or choke on a pretzel, this time for good, all in order to put off forever the day that we actually remove Saddam Hussein from power.

“making war on the innocent Iraqi people“:

Removing a malign tyrant who, along with his vile offspring, has been torturing, starving and murdering the Iraqi people for decades, often for no reason other than his own perverse pleasure, and thus thereby finally giving them peace. To fully satisfy the definition, he must be removed while we spend vast amounts of money on precision munitions to minimize collateral casualties to the Iraqi people, even to the extent of risking higher casualties to our own forces to do so.

“rush to war“:

Waiting a dozen years after Saddam signed an agreement to relinquish his weapons of mass destruction; waiting almost half a decade after he threw out the arms inspection teams who were there to see that he carried out his commitment; waiting a year and a half after being attacked by Middle Eastern forces that woke us up to the possibility of our vulnerability to people who have been threatening us for years; waiting over a year after declaring Iraq one of the nations that constitute a danger to the planet; carefully crafting and passing yet another UN Security Council resolution reiterating all the previous ones, with the stated intent of being a final one; waiting two months after the submission of a declaration in response to that supposedly final resolution that was 12,000 pages of non-responsiveness, before actually taking any significant military action to see that Saddam’s capability to attack his neighbors and our own nation is eliminated through military force.

“smoking gun“:

The level of evidence that will justify removing Saddam Hussein by military force. This one is very precisely defined.

It is a photograph of Saddam Hussein, standing next to fifty-gallon barrels clearly labeled “Anthrax, “Tabun, “Sarin,” “VX,” “Phosgene,” and “Smallpox Virus,” along with a suitcase marked “Danger: ACME Suitcase Nuke–Stand Well Back Before Detonating,” next to a geiger counter with meter pegged. One of Saddam’s hands is evilly twirling his mustache a la Snidely Whiplash, and the other arm is around the shoulder of a hale and hearty Osama bin Laden, who is in turn holding up a clearly-identifiable copy of last Sunday’s New York Times.

The picture must be taken by an objective, prize-winning photographer, such as Robert Fisk. No satellite imagery or CIA evidence is acceptable, since such a photo could be easily faked, and its provenance would thus be highly suspect.

I hope that this guide will help make more sense out of the speeches from politicians and commentary by clueless pundits and reporters that you’ll continue to hear over the next few weeks.