But the media resists this interpretation, straining to come up with other rationales. They love a “good story,” or they are attracted to the “newest star.” But these justifications falter with minimal scrutiny. (Sarah Palin is the newest politician, and certainly the rise from college basketball player to VP nominee is “good copy.”) They really can’t admit they are in the tank for ideological reasons. If so, their entire self-image as objective guardians of “truth” would collapse. And, moreover, they might have to hire different people–ones who thought differently and could balance their coverage.

It hasn’t just been they’re political coverage. Earlier this year a French court found in favor of Philipe Karsenty who essentially questioned the way the media – not just France 2 – covered the Middle East. Other than the NY Times in The Lede section, no major MSM outlet carried the story. The early coverage of the “Aqsa intifada” was appalling and it could be argued that the media had a hand in inciting the violence. And even the finding of the French court didn’t occasion any introspection on the part of the media.

So if an event where the media were destructive didn’t make them rethink their assumptions, why would they start on the road to recovery after they’ve just accomplished what they set out to do and convince their readers to elect Barack Obama president and make history?

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.