There is an abundance of morbidity engulfing the media in these days before the new year. Death is the new Life of the of the party. From James Brown to Gerald Ford to the freshly executed Saddam Hussein. But let’s not forget that December of 2006 was also the deadliest month of the year for American soldiers in Iraq. And it wasn’t so good for Iraqis either.

But the media soldiers on in it’s inimatable fashion, finding ever new ways to stun the senses. Last night, shortly after the Hanging of the Year, the debate began as to whether photos and video of Saddam’s demise should be broadcast or published. But they didn’t even wait for the debate to get heated up before hyping such broadcasts with teasers and promos. Here’s how Fox presented it:

But perhaps a more interesting visual account was this from CNN:

What’s wrong with this picture?

A solemn moment that is puncuated by the network’s crawl – a quote from Iraqi national security adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaie:

“It was an Iraqi operation from A to Z. The Americans were not present during the hour of the execution. They weren’t even in the building.”

“From A to Z” – ? Why would an Iraqi asserting that Americans were out of the loop use a descriptor from the English alphabet? This is perhaps a picked nit, but it just seems that this language illustrates how closely Americans are aligned with everything that is occurring in the land they are occupying, whether they want to admit it or not.

The public spirited artists and entertainers of the Creative Coalition honored Sean Penn this week with their First Amendment Award. The acceptance speech he delivered was so moving and comprehensive that I don’t want to clutter it up with my extraneous commentary. So I’ll just provide a few choice excerpts and implore you to go read the whole thing for yourself.

“We depend largely for information on […] issues from media industries, driven by the bottom line to such an extent that the public interest becomes uninteresting.”

“And should we speak truth, we stand against government efforts to intimidate or legislate in the service of censorship. Whether under the guise of a Patriot Act or any other benevolent-sounding rationale for the age-old game of shutting down dissent by discouraging independent thinking and preventing progressive social change.”

“And, where is the accountability on behalf of the American dead and wounded, their families, their friends, and the people of the United States who have seen their country become a world pariah. These events have been enabled by people named Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld, and Rice, as they continue to perpetuate a massive fraud on American democracy and decency.”

“Let’s give the whistle-blowers cover, let’s get the subpoenas out there, and then, one by one, put this administration under oath. And then, if the crimes of ‘Treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors’ are proven, do as Article 2, Section 4 of the United States Constitution provides, and remove ‘the President, Vice President and…civil officers of the United States’ from office.”

I purposely left out some of the best stuff. Go read it.

Editors and news directors in The Associated Press have voted for what they consider to be the top stories of 2006. Time magazine may be a little disappointed that none of the top finishers validated it’s selection of YOU as Person of the Year. I myself am disappointed that violations of the Constitution, in the form of warrantless wiretapping and snooping on financial transactions, didn’t make the cut. Those were big stories that go to the heart of American liberties. Here’s the whole list:

1. Iraq
2. U.S. Election
3. Nuclear Standoffs
4. Illegal Immigration
5. Scandals in Congress
6. Saddam Convicted
7. Mideast Fighting
8. Rumsfeld Resigns
9. Airliner Plot
10. Disaster in Darfur

At least Darfur squeeked in at the bottom, edging out Global Warming. The only real dud was the journalistically anti-climatic conviction of Saddam Hussein. Is there anyone who thought there would be an acquital?

In his Media Talkback online forum, Howard Kurtz takes questions from readers. Unfortunately, at least in this instance, he doesn’t actually answer them:

Pennington, N.J.: Why do we keep having people who were wrong on Iraq giving advice on TV? MTP this week had a politician and two Times columnists who have been consistently wrong. Why not have Russ Feingold, Paul Krugman, and Bob Herbert who were and still are right.

Howard Kurtz: If you banned pundits or politicians who were wrong about something from further TV appearances, the newscasts and talk shows would have a near-impossible time finding guests.

Note to Howard: The questioner did not ask about or propose banning anyone from TV. This was a reasonble inquiry as to why there is such an abundance of bunglers being presented as experts. Your answer implies that it doesn’t matter if a pundit is a serial screw-up. Is it really too much to ask that TV commentators demonstrate an ability to correctly analyze the issues they are invited to discuss?

Another questioner later asked much the same thing and Kurtz still didn’t comprehend, responding:

Howard Kurtz: A majority of both houses of Congress went along with the president’s war resolution, and a majority of news organizations supported the war and the argument that Saddam had WMD. So you had an awful lot of people who were wrong. Some of the publications have run mea culpas, and some of the politicians — John Kerry and John Edwards leap to mind — have said they were wrong to support the war. But I don’t think anyone has completely been let off the hook. Both politicians and pundits have had to account for the stance they took in 2002 and 2003.

Note to Howard: The fact that there were “an awful lot of people who were wrong” only reinforces the need to identify the few who were right and to bring their superior analysis to the fore. Despite your assertion, I can’t think of a single pundit that has had to account for an erroneous stance, even though there were an awful lot of them. I am also unable to think of a single pundit that has been rewarded for having been correct.

This illustrates one of the fundamental shortcomings of modern journalism, particularly the broadcast variety. The same faces are rotated throughout the TV schedule regardless of what they have to say or their credibility (or lack thereof). Once you’ve been admitted to the fraternity, you’re tenured and can rest assured that there is no professional lapse that will result in your removal. This creates an insular community that defends itself from outsiders and forgives its member’s failings. At the same time, it insures that diversity and dissent are dismissed, especially if it contradicts the established order.

The question is really very simple, Howard. Shouldn’t those who are more frequently correct be invited back more often than the brain-dead, ideologically compromised, elite pundicrats that endlessly litter the television landscape? You know, all of your buddies?