Quote of the Day

"The Sherrod story is a reminder — much like the 2004 assault on John Kerry by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth — that the old media are often swayed by controversies pushed by the conservative new media. In many quarters of the old media, there is concern about not appearing liberally biased, so stories emanating from the right are given more weight and less scrutiny. Additionally, the conservative new media, particularly Fox News Channel and talk radio, are commercially successful, so the implicit logic followed by old-media decisionmakers is that if something is gaining currency in those precincts, it is a phenomenon that must be given attention. Most dangerously, conservative new media will often produce content that is so provocative and incendiary that the old media find it irresistible."

-- Time magazine's Mark Halperin (astonishingly), stating the incredibly obvious but rarely admitted

How many times have I specifically used the word "overcompensation" when talking about the supposed liberal media's treatment of politically divisive issues? Likewise, how many times have I said that the press has only one true bias: conflict?

(via Cesca and Media Matters)

For Me To Paean

Two moments of swellness from Time magazine's resident butt-kissing hack, Mark Halperin -- specifically, his new piece in which he dutifully sucks the toes of Sarah Palin:

"Palin's video proves that she is savvy and sophisticated enough to harness her star power for political effect, shrugging off the cartoonish taint that has clung to her since she and McCain lost."

Meaning that, yes, she's no longer a cartoon. This he's somewhat right about -- she's actually more of a reality TV star these days.

And then there's this bit of pretzel logic:

"A new TIME poll shows Palin losing to Obama 55% to 34%, a lopsided margin that leads some Republican strategists to predict a wipeout if Palin is eventually chosen as the party's nominee.

But that might not matter."

While this is admittedly taken somewhat out of context, understand that Halperin is actually referring to Palin's chances of winning the White House in 2012; he's not pitching some "if you strike her down she will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine" theory. No, in Halperin-Bizarro-world, person who get most votes not always win election. And Halperin himself actually serious journalist.