I’d like to apologize in advance for subjecting you to some idiotic drivel one of Sullivan’s stunt stand-ins wrote yesterday, about the awesomeness of old media.
So repeat after me: David Broder was a superb journalist. Look in the mirror every morning and say it three times. Say it loud, say it proud. When your efforts to tell multiple sides of the story, to set your opinions to one side, to go find things out, and to get your facts straight—when those efforts lead bloggers to accuse you of “high Broderism,” tell them you accept the compliment. And offer to help them reach the same level someday.
David Broder may have been a good straight reporter (when he wasn’t smearing Ed Muskie with lies) back in the day, but it’s ridiculous to say that one shouldn’t use an opinion column to express opinions. In fact, Broder expressed opinions constantly in his column, he told us how much he hated Harry Reid, how much he liked Karl Rove, how much he thought John Kerry was a know-it-all, etc. The fact that his opinions were often personal rather than policy-based doesn’t make them not opinions. Anyway, he had opinions about policy too: Obama should invade Iran to boost his re-election chances, Bowles-Simpson will save us all, etc.
The larger trouble here, as is always the case when old media types argue with the blogosphere, is that they conflate reporting with opinion writing, using the word “journalism” as a catch all. Obviously, all sane people have the utmost respect for Dana Priest, James Risen, Nick Davies, and their ilk. That doesn’t mean we have to love David Broder’s senile opinion column dodderings. These have nothing to do with each other. How can this idiot not know that?