as you intimated, it can no longer be ignored that the internet in general and the blogosphere in particular have exacerbated the public's distrust of the (old) media--clark and his ilk despise the fact that blogs keep a running tab on the biases and inaccuracies in the MSM, and have shown an admirable willingness to jump headlong into issues that the Old Guard has been reluctant to touch. i would very much like to see a case-by-case study done of how many stories were only broached by the MSM *after* online (read: "the public") forums had been discussing them for some while.

Bush did it.

Did you just link to Arkin? I remember what Arkin wrote before, and I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say 'honest' and 'even-keeled'.

I'm not derailing the topic, cause I agree 100% with the central theme? I just don't quite get what you mean with the Arkin stuff.

Mr. Clark's assertion about the failure of the public to trust the media can be reduced to a brief dramatization:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGWSkSqBdWM

I think Mr. Clark just wants a world where everyone listens to and does not question the man on the TV screen.

1984, anyone?

Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.

These are UN Sanctions and credit cards.

17And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name

Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.

These are UN Sanctions and credit cards.

17And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name

This is the start of an economic collapse and credit scores going down.

Watching your demise take place in real time sucks. Clark may not get over it, but I will.

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

I just don't quite get what you mean with the Arkin stuff.

Sometimes even a blind squirrel finds a nut.

That is one reasonable conclusion to a study of media credibility conducted by Sacred Heart University in Fairfield, Conn. As a good Catholic boy growing up in the 1950s, I was devoted to the Sacred Heart of Jesus. But no such devotion can I feel to the prejudiced conclusions some scholars and politicians have drawn from this survey.

Q. What in the everloving hell is that?

A. Evidence that Clark feels that fealty to journalism ought to be rooted in faith.

I'll beg to differ.

My colleague Rick Edmonds reminds me that many people who come to the press without prejudice form their biases after failing to recognize themselves or their values in the news.

At which point they should be fired. Memo to journalists: The news isn't about you. It's about the facts as they exist...or at least it should be.

Troop size was always determined by the civilian leadership. Perhaps you have forgotten that the then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs was forced into early retirement after saying that 250,000 troops would be needed.
As far as needing proof that the Democrats would be infuriated, I find that a strange comment from someone who repeatedly talks about BDS.

As usual, John Ryan, your grasp of the facts is sadly lacking.

Gen. Pace was not renominated because he would have faced stiff opposition from the Democrat controlled Congress.

Here, read it from your own lefty mouthpiece, NPR:

Gates said that until recently, he had intended to renominate the Marine general for another two years, but that after consulting with senators in both parties, he had concluded that "the focus of his confirmation process would have been on the past and not on the future," apparently suggesting that reconfirmation would meet stiff resistence in Congress.

"I am no stranger to contentious confirmations, and I do not shrink from them," Gates said. "However, I have decided that at this moment in our history, the nation, our men and women in uniform, and Gen. Pace himself would not be well-served by a divisive ordeal in selecting the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff."

Asked by reporters whether the decision had anything to do with Pace's conduct of the war in Iraq, Gates replied: "It has absolutely nothing to do with my view of Gen. Pace's performance."
You should know by now that you can't get away with making up facts here like you can at DU, John Ryan, so why don't ya just go back there and leave us in peace?

Oops. That's what I get for posting without my glasses on. The blockquote in the above post should include the two paragraphs below the one that's already blockquoted. :)

Maybe Mr. Clark has a point to some degree. Your own example demonstrating the bias is misleading. Take the lead paragraph of MOST article and it will by itself tend to show bias. The purpose of the lead paragraph is to grab the reader's interest, not present supporting facts. That's what the rest of the article is for. The rest of the article (if read) does go on to state tensions between Gen Casey, GWB, SOD Gates, anon WH officials, etc that would seem to back up the statement about concerns of military planners. Basically, there were statements to the point that winning in Iraq is MORE important than the overall health of the millitary (don't read that as NOT important, just less important). Based on new statements from GWB and others, it looks like the possible outcome of the surge is to have a bigger presence in IRaw, so I don't think its wrong to summarize that there are "renewed" concerns about the strain on the military.

As far as the first point, the NYT articles says "likely" not definitely and based on the Democrats opposition to the war and based on statements made by the President and the Generals in the past, its not a reach. I'm sure there will be some Democrats ticked off by this...

Anyone can cherry pick facts to support their cause or agenda. IMO, maybe what Clark is trying to say is that cherry-picking facts may be dishonest but they are still most likely still facts (just not all of them or entirely accurate). When others criticize the reporter, they aren't typically disputing the facts as much as trying to discredit the reporter. Don't like the message, kill the messenger 21st century style. If you can discredit the messenger, no one will believe anything that is said. Thus discrediting the media, means no one believes any of the media...

Says Clark: "But I hold journalists less responsible -- and the public more responsible -- for misperceptions of news media performance. In short, the last two decades have seen unprecedented attacks upon the legitimacy of the news media..."

And off he goes, wrapping himself in the flag of journalism and crying that democracy is threatened.

I concur here with CY. After years of swallowing 'news' stories spoon-fed by journalists, and raging powerlessly at the obvious attempts therein to shove public opinion one way or another, I say more power to those allegedly 'unprecedented attacks'. My three decades of letters to editors, mostly suppressed on receipt, had miniscule effect on public awareness. No doubt Clark approves.

Clark says there have been two decades of these 'attacks'. Not having time to listen to media critics through the slow serial port of talk radio, I've only noticed cogent identification and exposure of media bias (almost always to the benefit of lefty Democrats) since blogs became well established following 9/11. Of course, having the vast Internet resources for immediate fact-checking (hat tip Ken Layne) of journalistic asses greatly enables those exposures of tendentious, opinion-steering articles.

And I say, that if there's a threat to democracy attached to journalism, it comes from that self-righteous crusading by the journalists themselves. How can Clark defend it, when the red-state mindset and traditions (to put an extremely crude handle on it here), which are held by about half the population of the US, are habitually denigrated or excluded from consideration by eager journalists who are out to 'make a difference' via striking verbal blows on behalf of righteousness?

Let him defend against the assertion that journalists (print and TV) are a self-selecting clique (oh, excuse me, 'profession') who do not practice diversity of opinion, and who do practice selective exclusions, and who do not put news items in perspective when numbers are involved.

I say that they've made their own antidemocratic bed, now let them lie in it and shiver at the winds of (horrors!) exposure of their cherished biases. The good old gatekeeping days are being steadily lost to them.

The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 02/01/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.

You people act like the MSM is owned by Joan Baez and Jerry Brown. Ever read the New York Posst or Daily News? Ever seen Fox or ABC ? All of the talking heads are moderate Repubs or Democrat s who have cocktails together in their expensive homes after they go at each other.

Chris, look at the relative proportions of left-leaning media outlets vs. right-leaning ones.

Oh, what am I saying, you'll never accept facts that disagree with The Narrative. The Narrative is all, The Narrative cannot be wrong, so anything that disagrees with The Narrative must be suppressed.

That's sooo cheap and mean. What do you describe as "left-leaning". Define your terms. James Carville doesn't come near MY definition of radical.

If you need someone to define those terms for you, sir, you probably need to label your shoes so you can get the right one on the right foot. Methinks you are stalling.

However, just to shut you up, try this report from UCLA... hardly a neocon stronghold.

Or this one (.pdf) from the University of Chicago.

There are many more, those are just two that my search turned up.

Don't bother arguing with Chris. The sky is a different color in his world.

And he's flaker than a bowl of breakfast cereal.

Just lean back and enjoy his entertaining, performance-art-esque displays of grade-A Lefty Crazy.

I'm almost done with the cat toy, Dave. I just wanna give him plenty of rope to hang himself with.

Oh the irony of being talked down to by Bush/Cheney supporters about honest mediation and truthful disclosure.

Give em the dusk-orb chris!

Ahh, I see Chris has pulled out Lefty Canned Response #4B... SO predictable.

How about speaking to the merits of the articles I gave you, Chris? Or is that too hard for you?

I like what Tom Wolfe said about the term "Liberal Arts"..it's rooted in Roman times as what you would teach to a "free" man..(liber)> What would you want a slave to think? Unquestioning loyalty to authority..the state, the church..Hopefully the press would have a bias toward "free thought, free speech, free inquiry, etc"..ok, let 'er rip guys.

CCG..I read the first (UCLA) report but there is no way I am going to read through forty three pages on the PDF to wrestle with your point of view. First of all maybe a "free" people has a liberal bias in general..second of all I think "the press" means the overall big picture for outlets of information and opinion. I think any responsible citizen should check out several sources, investigate their owners and their motives and decide for themselves.

@chris:

there is no way I am going to read through forty three pages

The Poynter Sisters Institute?

Chris, if a free people has a liberal point of view, why do so many lefties in the press try to hide their viewpoint? You'd think if it would help them with popularity, they'd be advertising themselves as the most liberal network around.

Your reply, in short, fails the laugh test miserably. But then the Old Grouch is right... you didn't truly come here for a real debate, you wanted to sling some mud and are now probably amazed that you're getting your head handed to you on a regular basis.

If you ever decide to make a cogent, logical argument, I may respond. Until then, however, I am probably not going to waste a lot more bandwidth on responding to you.