I remember Seymour Hersh talking about this in an interview months if not years ago. Matter of factly. No grand conspiracy. Something about seeing it and getting frustracted for being scooped on something.

“We” (talkers, blogs) have more input now, which is good, but “we” are still mostly in reactive mode. Perhaps initiatives like Pajamas Media might change this.

Those who do the frontline reporting have a duty to give us their perspective straight without first filtering it by checking to see if it’s the same as what their other news buds have. I would think this is Journalism 101, but NYT-WaPo have failed us in this regard for a decade, and apparently continue to do so. I feel, no, I have been cheated. We all have been cheated.

Personally, I’ve grown very tired of the perpetual victimhood by my friends on the left. If just gets comical when the right adopts the same tone.

Compare and contrast the intertwining paths of new media and old, via two items going online simultaneously today: Pajamas Media announces the roadmap to its official launch in November. Meanwhile, this Washington Post article explains that starting ne…

The existence of a headline conspiracy is now an admitted and established fact. The speculation, besides the idea that collusion made things “simple” (it always does for the colluders at the expense of consumers who have a right to expect a free market and weren’t getting it in reporting and the arena of ideas), is whether there was a motivation beyond reducing the stress of editors who should have been vigorously competing against each other instead of cooperating in secret. Especially given the hysterical tone of these publications at the time of the Gingrich Revolution, there’s reason to think there may have been.

In retrospect, it looks like the Clinton right-wing news conspiracy theorists may have been projecting based on the known (to them) behavior of their friends at WaPo and NYT.

BTW, I’m growing to really despise how you avoid core arguments and try to put words in my mouth. You do it constantly to mischaracterize people’s positions to gain an arguable position. You can do better.