Thunder on the Left

Now he responds by expanding his indictment: "The Sunday piece perpetuated two fictions: First, that the post-9/11 reassertion of partisanship was as natural and inevitable a change in the weather; and second, that the parties were equally complicit in it. They weren't, though. The piece didn't include the crucial context that GOP strategy for years now has rested partly on the idea that polarization and partisanship works to the benefit of Republicans, because self-described conservatives outnumber liberals. Nor did it even mention that less than five months after the Sept. 11 attacks, Rove came right out and said that the GOP not just could, but should use national security issues to gain partisan advantage."

I dwell on this because it's a good case study in what journalism should be. The Post piece was built around a poll of public attitudes and did not set out to analyze which party was to blame (I wish I had a buck for every Post story about the Republican tactic of exploiting the war on terror). So it's like blasting a story about the Nationals losing another game for not analyzing why the owners were to blame for the team being lousy.

Even so, the Post story did say this:

"The first television commercials aired by Bush's reelection campaign in the spring of 2004 featured brief footage of flag-draped remains being carried out of the ruins at Ground Zero. The ad sparked instant controversy, with critics charging the Bush team with exploiting Sept. 11 for political gain.

"Bush was determined to use 9/11 in his campaign, and, knowing that any ad featuring the attacks would be controversial, his advisers had shown the opening commercials to groups of voters before putting them on the air.

"Many Democrats cite the political attacks on then-Sen. Max Cleland (D-Ga.), a wounded Vietnam veteran, whose votes for several union-protection amendments helped delay passage of the bill creating the Department of Homeland Security. His opponent ran ads saying that Cleland 'pretends to support President Bush, but he voted against homeland security 11 times.' That campaign signaled to many Democrats that Republicans would not hesitate to use the terrorism issue as a partisan club.

"White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove signaled earlier this year that Republicans will continue to use terrorism and national security to put the Democrats on the defensive."

So the issue of GOP responsibility was not exactly ignored. Maybe the piece could have been sharper. My only point is that it's our job to give readers the facts, not take sides in partisan warfare.

Speaking of bloggers, Slate's Jack Shafer reports on a Pew study of the broad mass of people posting online, not just the more prominent political commentators:

"About half of all American bloggers are men, says Pew. About half are under the age of 30. About half use a pseudonym. About half say creative self-expression or documenting personal experiences is a major reason for blogging. About half think their audience is folks they already know. Half say changing people's minds is not a major reason behind their blog, and about half had never published before starting their blog.

"Pew's blogging masses couldn't be more different than the American A-listers. Most A-listers are men over 30; have published before; are in it primarily to change public opinions and not to share their experiences; know only a fraction of their readers; and don't conceal their identities."

The president's first speech to the nation's leading civil rights group, like his first veto, has been overshadowed by the Mideast war, but here's how the morning papers are handling it: