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?

The Wall Street Journal is not generally known for its proletarian leanings. So it may come as some surprise that an editorial on Friday courageously attacks Democrats it says are “carrying water for rich special interests.” What a relief that the Journal is here to keep those wealthy ne’er do wells from exploiting the masses. Wall Street once again comes to the rescue of the working stiff.

The Democrats at the receiving end of this smack down are the two commissioners at the FCC who are holding up the merger of AT&T and Bell South. According to the Journal, this merger would benefit labor and increase competition. That’s obvious because everyone knows that an $80 billion merger of giant corporations is really only being done to help the little people.

The Journal correctly reports that Commissioners Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein object to the merger because they want to secure the protection of Network Neutrality. Then the Journal gets everything else wrong. First they fail to understand that Network Neutrality requires that big Telecom companies not discriminate in providing services to Internet enterprises. Imagine if you were to call information to get the number for Applebee’s, but the operator said you could only have the number for Denny’s. Without Network Neutrality, Telecoms could do that on the Net by discriminating against, for instance Google, in favor of their own search engine, or charge more if you wanted to reach Google instead. Contrary to the Journal’s assertion, the Telecom’s ability to set market prices for the use of their series of tubes would not be restricted. They would just be required to set them in a non-discriminatory fashion.

One of the Journal’s justifications for opposing Network Neutrality is that it was defeated in the just concluded session of congress. What they neglect to mention is that the majority Republicans of the just concluded session of congress, who opposed Network Neutrality, were also defeated. And if losing a vote in congress meant that the issue was forever decided, then I suppose the Journal will editorialize against any more votes on gay marriage or flag burning.

The Journal goes on to complain that the tie vote at the FCC is putting undue pressure on Commissioner Robert McDowell, who properly recused himself because he previously worked for one of the parties connected to the merger consideration. The Journal implies that he would be subject to “trumped-up” ethics charges were he to vote on the matter. But McDowell voluntarily recused himself and the only pressure he’s received is from the Republican Chairman of the commission, Kevin Martin, who is trying to force him to un-recuse himself and vote. The Journal then makes the spurious allegation that members of congress are laying in wait for McDowell should he cross them. They issue this ominous warning of the danger that lurks:

“The likes of John Dingell and Ed Markey could make life miserable or worse for Mr. McDowell, as they did for so many others back when they ran Congress before 1994.”

Sounds scary, doesn’t it? Thank goodness we have a champion to take the side of the people and against those big, bad corporations. We all owe the Wall Street Journal a debt of gratitude and, if we’re lucky, they won’t foreclose on us.

It has been famously reported that Charles H. Duell, a Commissioner of the U.S. patent office in 1899, said:

“Everything that can be invented has been invented.”

What a monumentally stupid thing to say. The only problem is that there is no evidence that he ever said any such thing. Consequently, Daryl Plummer, of Gartner, Inc., has one less competitor in the Monumentally Stupid Sweepstakes. Amongst his top 10 predictions for 2007, is that blogging has reached a peak and will now taper off:

“Most people who would ever dabble with Web journals already have. Those who love it are committed to keeping it up, while others have gotten bored and moved on.”

Right. And everything that can be invented…Oh Nevermind. I just hope Plummer is never hired at the Patent Office.

Or rather, to Iraq. Same thing really, though you wouldn’t know it by the First Lady’s description earlier today.

Former CNN chief Eason Jordan recently launched (in beta) a new web site that he says will aggregate news and opinions on Iraq from a neutral perspective. Unfortunately, his IraqSlogger has already demonstrated the weakness of its knees by bending them to a known partisan ranter, and one that has been particularly unkind to Jordan in the past.

Michele Malkin, the PJ Media Harpie, complained to Jordan that he failed to cover a story that she believes was fabricated by writers at the Associated Press. So Jordan offered to go to Iraq to investigate it himself, and then offered to bring her along at his expense.

Malkin has accepted the offer by graciously stating:

“No way should we just take the word of they [sic] guy who admitted covering up for Saddam Hussein and who resigned from CNN after baselessly slandering the U.S. military.”

She’s going to be a pleasant traveling companion, ya think? By the time the trip is over Jordan may well have told Malkin to go to that other Hell.

However, I really don’t see any downside to this trip. If she returns enlightened by the gruesome reality she is likely to encounter (assuming she steps outside the Green Zone), then maybe she will start writing something that matters. If she comes back unchanged, then she’ll just keep spewing the same garbage that has become her trademark.

What I don’t understand is why Jordan would invite her in the first place. She’s not a journalist and has no experience in war zone investigations. She is just another right-wing op-spinner who will parlay this trip into a series of guest appearances on the O’Reilly Factor. What does Jordan think he’s getting by sponsoring her besides a pain in the neck sitting next him, regaling him with insults on a 14 hour plane ride? Well, that and a heckler that will, upon their return, contradict his factual findings if they in any way contrast with her sham ideology.

This is an inauspicious beginning for IraqSlogger. But maybe I can take advantage of it. Do you think that if I complain to Jordan that he’s been derelict in his coverage of a crisis in Provence that he would offer to fly me to the south of France to investigate?

Hmmm. It’s worth a try.

Nevermind the fact that the Bush administration is notching its lowest ratings ever in recent polling, or that the war they promote is likewise at the nadir of its popularity, the media still seems to find ways to prop it up.

A report from the Associated Press is headlined:
Unpopular Iraq war still has supporters:

“GOD-BLESS-OUR-TROOPS” is spelled out in four big signs along a wooded stretch of highway in rural southern Oklahoma.

The AP had to travel to “a wooded stretch of highway” to find this example of support, that also perpetuates the hackneyed falsehood that war dissenters don’t support the troops.

Last week the conservative media scored when Rumsfeld took a victory defeat lap around Iraq in his last few days as Secretary of Defense. The media entourage was something less than fair and balanced:

Rumsfeld took only outspoken conservative talk show host Sean Hannity and his Fox News television crew.

Today we saw the First Lady interviewed by Norah O’Donnell. Her support for the war is bolstered by her view that the press is getting it all wrong:

“I do know that there are a lot of good things that are happening that aren’t covered. And I think that the drum beat in the country from the media, from the only way people know what is happening unless they happened to have a loved one deployed there, is discouraging.”

Did I read that right? Is she saying that families that do have loved ones deployed are not discouraged? And as for all of the good things that aren’t being covered, she should refer to the report by her husband’s own Iraq Study Group that concluded that:

“…there is significant underreporting of the violence in Iraq.”

This surprising burst of optimism is brought to you by America’s Big Media. Why they are leaping to the defense of BushCo’s debacle at this time is unfathomable. Either they really need some regulatory favor to be granted or they are just plain idiots. Or, of course, both.

In his daily press briefing, Tony Snow inadvertantly revealed the administration’s true feelings about the public they purport to serve.

Question: …it seems that the American people are also speaking very loudly. I’m wondering how much is he going to factor in what they seem to be saying, and is he going to be listening to them?

Answer: The President has listened, but the other thing that will be interesting is what I talked about before. Public opinion is not something chiseled in stone. Quite often it’s shaped by, among other things, political campaigns. And now there’s an opportunity for both parties to work together.

“Public opinion is not something chiseled in stone.” This is brilliant!

In one fell swoop he justifies ignoring the will of the people, trivializes the results of a national election, and clears a path to wiggle out of any tight spot.

You notice that he is not disparaging public opinion, just pointing out that it is mutable – that we are just a bunch of jellyfish with limited nervous systems whose perspectives can be molded by crafty propagandists like himself.

What a pro!

While I couldn’t be more thrilled and relieved that Repubs took the thumpin’ that they did last month, I don’t think that this victory automatically ushers in a new era of progressive politics. I am somewhat pessimistic about the path that Dems will now take. There are many of them that share the same intentions and elitist supporters as Repubs. The Corporatist Political Holy Bankrollers just write down a different name on the payee line. It has been said that…

…democracy is that form of government where every four years the elite let the oppressed choose which of the elite will oppress them for the next four years.

There is a fair degree of cynicism in that quote. But it is not unwarranted. As recently as the last presidential election, we had two members of Yale’s exclusive Skull and Bones society vying for our support.

Since November 7, everyone who knows me has inquired as to just how happy I am about the electoral results. To their surprise, my answer has been relatively muted. I tell them that I am happy the Repubs are gone, now we just have to get the Dems to do the right thing. And that may be just as hard as getting rid of the Repubs.

Already in the early jockeying for position, some Dems are running for the center. The race for majority leader in the House pitted two confirmed conservative Democrats against each other, and the one with the old school cred prevailed. What might that portend for the future agenda of Speaker Pelosi? The First 100 Hours plan is not exactly a progressive manifesto. Raising the minimum wage and promoting stem cell research are laudable, but they also enjoy broad popular appeal and require little leadership to achieve. It would require substantially more leadership to confront the issues that voters thrust to the fore in last months elections. But already Pelosi has stated that impeachment and defunding the occupation of Iraq are “off the table.” Those are certainly difficult issues and maybe we shouldn’t do either one, but taking them off the table is not the act of a courageous leader. It is that act of a political functionary who is afraid to take the heat that comes with vigorous debate of consequential matters.

There are good reasons to be pessimistic about the 110th Congress. The corrupting influence of power is ever-present and it is advancing on the Democrats. I wrote about it last June: Corporate Handicappers Betting On Democrats:

After a decade of Republicans soaking up corporate largesse in the form of donations, vacations and other assorted perks and bribes, Democrats are starting to catch the eye of these deep-pocketed givers … traditional Republican backers like the insurance, pharmaceuticals and tobacco industries, are flipping their allegiances in order to sustain their sway over Congress.

And it isn’t just that lobbyists are now pitching to congressional Dems, the K Street firms that embody the lobbying community are aggressively recruiting Dems to become the next generation of lobbyists. Back in June I worried that…

The bad news is that the corporations that have besotted the Republican party, and to no small degree led to their decline through scandal and corruption, are now wining and dining Democrats. All that the corporations and lobbyists care about is that they have an ever-available stable of fresh whores that they can use up and discard when they’re no longer pretty. Will the Dems just become the next flurry of drunken sluts seduced by money and the power it brings?

So, will the ascending Dems do the right thing? Will they do the hard things? Will they conduct effective oversight? Will they produce accountability? Will they repeal the abominations of the previous regime, from bankruptcy rules to habeas corpus to environmental regs to tax equity, etc.? Of course, much of this agenda cannot be enacted without the signature of the president, but it can be fought for. Will the Dems step up for the fight?

I don’t know the answer, and I don’t think anyone else here does either. What I do know is that one difference between the Repubs and the Dems is that the Dems can be swayed through constituent pressure. That’s a big difference, but it means the onus is on US to get anything done.

So the change in congress is really just going to make our lives harder. With Repubs in power our lobbying was pointless. Now that it means something, we have to work harder at it. Will we step up for the fight? Will we show leadership? Will we fight just as hard against a Rubberstamp Democratic congress as we did against the Republican variety?

Well, will we?