Boehlert argues, of course, that there’s a world of difference between organizations like the liberal Media Matters for America–“whose work I relied on extensively”–and the conservative Media Research Center, which he lumps in with the press haters. The distinction, Boehlert writes, is that the press haters want to “dismantle journalism” and “create confusion about facts, while simultaneously undermining news consumers’ confidence in the MSM.” They “aren’t interested in thoughtful analysis or improving the craft of journalism”–which, Boehlert implies, separates them from reasonable, thoughtful press critics such as himself. People like him just want the media to start reporting “the facts”–that’s all. The trouble is, for every passage in which Boehlert catalogues the media’s failure to “report the facts,” I could produce an equal and opposite passage arguing the same thing from a conservative viewpoint. Take this passage in which Boehlert laments the media’s coverage of the Jack Abramoff scandal: In January 2006, when Newsweek wrote up the indictments of Jack Abramoff, the GOP kingpin lobbyist, the magazines headline read “A Washington Tidal Wave: Members of Congress rushed to give back money,” suggesting the influence-peddling scandal was a bipartisan “Washington” problem. The Newsweek article stressed the public would likely “remain appropriately skeptical of both parties.” [Emphasis added in original.] Time used the same kid glove approach: “Jack Abramoff built a power network using the rich and naïve. Washington may pay the price.” [Emphasis added in original]. The Washington Post falsely reported Abramoff had “made substantial campaign contributions to both major parties…” The Washington Post article Boehlert cites here drew so many negative comments from angry liberals to the Post’s blog–including personal insults toward the author of the piece–that the Post took the extraordinary step of shutting down the comment system. After liberal bloggers accused the Post of censorship, Post.com editor Jim Brady invited one of them to participate in an online chat with Post.com readers, corrected the offending article and later re-instated comments. It was a milestone in the online left’s widening strategy of mimicking conservative media critics in an effort to influence the press. Again, they don’t agree that this is what they are doing. But just compare that passage from Lapdogs to this passage Brent Baker wrote on the Media Research Center’s blog, Newsbusters, last Monday: Gloria Borger concluded her Monday CBS Evening News story on the FBI’s weekend confiscation of cash from a freezer in Louisiana Democratic Congressman William Jefferson’s home by declaring a pox on both parties: “At a time when 77 percent of the American public believes that all members of Congress take bribes, Congressman Jefferson’s troubles help no one in either party.” Unlike ABC anchor Elizabeth Vargas and NBC anchor Campbell Brown who noted Jefferson’s party affiliation in their story introductions, CBS’s Bob Schieffer managed to set up Borger’s report without identifying Jefferson’s party: “The government says FBI agents videotaped Louisiana Congressman William Jefferson taking $100,000 in cash from an informant and later found $90,000 in his home freezer.” Borger did subsequently identify Jefferson as a Democrat. Baker’s criticism is identical to Boehlert’s–a scandal that affects only one party is portrayed as one that affects both (only in this case, the scandal really has nothing to do with Republicans, whereas some Democrats returned contributions they had received from Abramoff’s clients). In Lapdogs, Boehlert identifies correctly several instances in which the media have inarguably failed to do their job–and at a most basic level, that means they’ve reported false information. But at other times he’s disingenuous about what “the facts” means, and that’s where the debate becomes futile. For instance, to return to the Abramoff example, Boehlert chides the media for ignoring the “fact” that it is not a bipartisan scandal. Yet some Democrats returned Abramoff-related money, so clearly there is room for disagreement here, and an argument about how the media should objectively report the news isn’t possible when there is significant disagreement over which facts are salient or newsworthy. What Boehlert is really saying is that the media should report the facts that liberals find salient and newsworthy, which is exactly what he accuses conservatives of doing. By claiming that he represents the side that’s fighting to improve journalism and labeling all others “press haters,” Boehlert does a serious disservice to those who might otherwise engage him in a discussion about how to do it. For instance, columnist Michael Kinsley has written often about dropping the pretense of objectivity altogether. As he explains, that “does not mean abandoning the journalist’s most important obligation, which is factual accuracy.” Such a revolutionary step might end this pointless tug-of-war over the media and give everyone a journalism that’s more honest and transparent. In the absence of such a radical change, the more likely alternative is that people of all political persuasions will continue to try to influence the media–just like activists who work to influence other institutions in our democracy–by pointing out when we think they’re wrong and suggesting alternatives. In Lapdogs, Boehlert has done a lot of the former, which his fellow liberals will applaud. But his suggested alternative–“report the facts”–doesn’t get us very far. FULL DISCLOSURE: I make a brief appearance in the press-hating chapter. Better than being one of those gutless, MSM poodles, I guess. — Stephen Sprueill reports on the media for National Review Online’s Media Blog.