For some reason this Partisan Jab hasn't caught on yet. The first one's had over 10,000 views, but this one just a few hundered. Huh. Internet. Go figure.

It's funny, especially in light of recent news.

MfA and INVOLVER on Air America Tonight!

That's me in there with Molly, Jared from the Knit, plus two guys named Kyle and Chuck who you may have heard of.

I shook hands with Chuck D... this reality has yet to really sink in.

I'm a supporter of Chris Allbritton and his adventures in Iraq. I gave him money and I read his site. Here's his latest: Car bombings and other musings

So here’s my honest question: Why do you think the media are not telling you the truth out of Iraq? What do you think the truth is? Why do you believe that the truth is what you think it is? And who is the media to you?

Something to consider: there's an important and growing difference between the efforts of individual journalists and the national narrative which is the collective product of the media. Chris sites a good example of journalism from the WaPo, and then wonders if it's television that's runing the reputation of reportage in general. He's mostly right.

What most people end up exposed to is some stray bit of story from some media combine, a single pulled quote from a 700 word story mixed in with some sensational footage butted up against the latest word from the spin room over in the West Wing. This mediated melange, our AVID-enabled later-day chorus, is largely responsible for the public's loss of faith.

This loss is near total for those who turn the corner. Between 2000 and 2004 I went from clicking through to cnn.com to nytimes.com to dailykos.com and never looked back. And why not? For the most part, the news is boring and predictable. It is flaccidly written and painfully devoid of anything but the most jaded conclusions; often lacking even those.

Journalists, men and women like Chris, are coming around to this fact en masse, and the sense of frustration is palpable in the air. "Why don't they trust us?" ask a mostly honest, mostly hard-working group of reporters. The answer is a collection of factors. As I call it:

• The best and brightest among you seem to be more concerned with their personal career arc than getting the story right
• The contemporary voice of journalism is often insulting to an intelligent audience
• The talking heads who represent your most public face are largely a collection of cowards and stooges
• Real journalists have done very little to counteract the corrosive effects of lowest-common-denominator TV infotainment; no one has taken a stand

Serious Journalists beware: you now have millions of fairly smart people running around America who are more of less convinced that they know better and are more courageous than you. They believe this because they never swallowed Bush's war pill, because they turned away in disgust at the moral masturbation which gushed forth after 9/11, because the media assassination of Howard Dean was plainly just that (whether he walked into it or not). Most simply, it is because they've been saying things for quite a while that you are only now coming around to report.

Of course "they" in this sense aren't often bright enough to realize that there are plenty of "you" who were dissenters from the media consensus. However, it's easier to blame your problems on an amorphous mass of people. The stupid left blames the Media just like the stupid right blames Islam. It's comforting in a darkly human way.

But no matter how unfair this all may seem, the problem still exists, and at it's heart the problem is very real. Journalists by in large do not (in my limited personal experience) seem to understand very much, or if they do they take great pains to obscure this understanding. It reminds me of a young girl in high school who pretends to be ditzy so as not to intimidate the boys, only in this case the boys are bent of doing some very plainly terrible things, and she's going along because... well that's the rub then, isn't it?

Tens of thousands of people are dead, our international credibility squandered, billions of dollars wasted, the 21st Century off to a very shitty start, and it can be said with some reason that all this is because nobody in a position of real public authority took a stand against the Juggernaut Media Consensus the Bush Gang managed to conjure out of the ashes of Ground Zero. A lot of us take that kind of personally, and it's a tough rep to beat in hindsight: not standing up to what they did. Ask John Kerry about it if you're ever hanging out.

Chris is doing quite a lot to remedy the issue for himself by taking control of his own voice and his own publishing. For the rest of the circus, there's a split coming between the people who want to make money and entertain Americans who fancy themselves "informed" and those who have a passion for truth and storytelling.

And unfortunately, I don't see reunification coming down the pipeline anytime soon. Ranting demogaugery is and always has been profitable. The question is what the other side can do to regain the trust of their readers. It begins will telling them things they didn't know before, and it's going to take a while.

I get the GOP Team Leader email of course, and here's what I got today:

...Then in his remarks Mr. Soros--the billionaire supporter of John Kerry and MoveOn.org--equated the attacks of September 11 to the Abu Ghraib prison abuse and went on to say, “The war on terror has taken more innocent victims than the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.”

Unbelievable.

Abu Ghraib was bad and the soldiers involved are rightly being punished, but for Democrats to say that the abuse of Iraqi fighters is the moral equivalent of the slaughter of 3,000 innocent Americans is outrageous.

Leaving aside the smear that Soros morally equivocated Abu Ghraib and 9/11 (he didn't; he said they both produced shocking images), I'd like to focus on that middle paragraph.

Why is it unbelievable that more than 3,000 innocent people have been killed in our military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq? Is it unbelievable that we could have killed so many people, or that anyone would dare to say that we did?

I hate to let a little thing like math get in the way of a good zinger, but 9,284 > 3000. Oh, and don't forget the Afghanis.

So let's be clear here. Even if you think the lowball estimate from the IraqBodyCount is too high, you probably have to admit that when we spend about $200B over about three years killing people and blowing shit up, we end up with more than 3,000 unintented (read: innocent) deaths. So the numbers aren't unbelievable.

What is unbelievable then? It must be that someone would have the gall to point out that the underlying emotional motivation for our current military (mis)adventures -- vengance -- is completely morally bankrupt even from the most brutal perspective, which is scale. It's un-fucking-believable to the GOP that a man from the opposition party would get on stage and say, "Holy shit, this is so fucked up! Not only are we bombing the wrong fucking people, but we're killing 3 or 4 times as many innocent civilians as died in the attacks on our own country."

That, to them, is unbelievable. It's unbelievable that people in this country are willing to publicly state that we've killed (and are continuing to kill) more Iraqi and Afghani civilians than we lost here at home.

I've met decent people who vote Republicans. I've even heard of decent Republican office-holders. But this GOP apparatus is an enemy of truth, an enemy of logic, an enemy of compassion and rational thought. They've got to fucking go, and decent Republicans are going to realize this sooner or later. You cannot run a good political party on lies, racism and religious fervor.