Oh please, Jack.

If the messenger routinely takes it upon himself to quote only the parts of the message that it thinks relevent, and chooses to ignore parts at its whim, then it is entirely and completely appropriate to blame the messenger.

Indeed, no responsible person would do anything besides blame the messenger for that.

And given that the meainstream media--i.e. our messenger--has repeatedly been PROVEN not to relay the entire message, there is absolutely no way a rational person could do anyting besides criticize the messenger.

To be very clear, then: when the messenger ceases to do anything BESIDES relay the direct and unadulterated message, I'll stop criticizing that messenger. So long as the messenger continues to pretend to be "objective" even while he selectively chooses to relay only what he thinks is significant, I will continue to attack that messenger for being an utterly biased and untrustworthy source.

Let me just ask you this: if I call you on the phone, and a telephone operator comes on and asks me what I want to say, then that operator calls you and tells you what she THINKS I had to say, and what it "really means," and only tells you what SHE thinks is important about what I said, would you not think I'd have room for complaint?

Stop defending the paid gatekeepers of knowledge, Jack. They've arrogated powers to themselves that they do not deserve.

Dean,

You apparently did not read what I wrote in this post, which is we have an *adversarial* system, and it is the responsibility of the administration to get its side of the story out. There was a LOT of completely uncritical reporting of administration statements in the lead up to the war in Iraq, and even now the administration still has plenty of outlets to get its message out, including the mainstream media which DOES still uncritically repeat administration statements, along with Fox News which is certainly not "left-leaning" and is now the most popular cable news network in the US. In addition, in your argument in this comment, you write of the public as if they are a bunch of mindless clones who do not filter what they see, similar to your accusation towards me regarding my attitude towards the public in our emails on Social Security that I felt the public wasn't smart enough to invest. Based upon the results of the election, I think it's safe to say that the public does not swallow what the mainstream media says without a grain of salt.

I have posted many times in the past how I feel the media is both intellectually and physically lazy, unqualified to report on many issues, and writes for money, not for truth, so I would suggest that you not make comments to the effect of "stop defending the the paid gatekeepers of knowledge," for I am not defending them. Indeed they are paid, but in no sense are they "gatekeepers" for there are a wide variety of information sources out there, and not all of them are controlled by the mainstream media as required if the media were truly gatekeepers. Rather than "defending them", I am pointing out that we have an adversarial system. As I wrote, this is the system that has evolved, and until either it stops making money or we pass restrictive and undemocratic laws, it will stay that way. The success of Fox News shows that the system is correcting itself, and endless harping of "media bias" is not only inaccurate, but begins to sound a lot like whining any time something arises that contradicts the rosy statements of the administration. The public has been lied to by Presidents before, as recently as the last administration (i.e. President Clinton). Uncritical acceptance of the situation as presented by the administration is not healthy for democracy.

Finally, editing is a part of any endeavor that is intended to convey information. You edit what you present on your weblog, even in the simple choices of what you choose to post or who you choose to be co-authors, and you have stated that you try to be balanced, however you have been accused by people of not being balanced. Obviously, people can feel they are being balanced and others disagree that they are being balanced. However, in your comment here you pass judgment on the motives of the media, saying they "pretend to be 'objective' even while he selectively chooses to relay only what he thinks is significant." An accusation of "pretending" presumes deliberate intent, i.e. motive. As you have stated recently, "motive based arguments" are unsatisfying and very unconvincing. It is my contention that they do not have a deliberate intent to be biased, but every person DOES have a bias, and in our adversarial system it is the nature of the media to be opposed to the administration. Do you blame defense lawyers for doing their jobs of presenting a solid defense, even for a heinous criminal?

Earlier today you wrote, "I still consider myself a liberal--open minded, tolerant of disagreement on most issues, patriotic, not wedded to old ideas, open to ideas for reform," in you post titled "On Communicating With Intellectual Rivals", yet every time I have expressed an opinion contradictory to yours you respond with comments that disparage my viewpoint such as the "Oh, please, Jack" in your previous comment, or in our email discussion on Social Security where you terminated it with "I'm too tired to discuss this any more," instead of addressing the points I made. Tolerant of disagreement means that you have actually read, understood, and considered the opinion that disagrees with yours and are willing to acknowledge points that may be correct, and also to consider that I may be writing with the same motivation you do, which is a love of my country and a true concern regarding the direction it is headed.

I would be very happy to have discussions with you on issues relating to the media or anything else, but if you are truly as inflexible as you have shown yourself to be to date in your contacts with me, with no admission that any viewpoint other than your own may have merit, I must question why you consider yourself a liberal or open minded. I suggest you read what one of your co-authors at Dean's World, Joe Gandelman, has posted tonight here:

http://themoderatevoice.typepad.com/blog/2004/12/_blogging_what__1.html

Dismissive remarks such as, "Oh please," are unhelpful, and appearing to not have taken the time to fully read and understand the thrust of the post you are commenting on is even less helpful.

Regards,

-Jack

You were the one who said we can't criticize the messanger--which we absolutely can, if we believe the messenger is not telling us the whole story. And given how often we've found in the last year that the messenger IS NOT telling us the whole story, it's entirely within the rights of--nay, i say the duty of--anyone who cares to question the messenger.

And I don't have a problem at all with being inflexible when someone wishes to relay facts which might cause me to question my worldview. I merely have trouble with selective quotations, and the notion that if we question those who give us incomplete quotations as being sacred "messengers" who we must not question.

On the issue of Social Security Privatization, I noted that you had a tendency to selectively quote your sources.

And I will continue to inhesitatnly question a news media that selectively quotes only what it wants, and that ignores and/or quotes out of contexts the statements of the administrat--ANY administration no matter whose.

But Merry Christmas. :-)

You can criticize the messenger, but in the course of it the message is routinely completely dismissed. That is unwise, even if the messenger does have feet (or even whole legs) of clay. There is a difference between criticism and outright dismissal along the lines of "they are biased and they mean to be" that I see regularly on *both* left and right-wing weblogs.

Regarding my possible selective quotation, unless you are referring to selectively quoting from within the sources, the sources I quoted on the Social Security issue (with the exception of The Economist, which I read regularly) were gathered in a quick Google search taking the first few links, no cherry picking.

Merry Christmas to you as well.

We'll argue more another day. Be well!