Maybe I am dense, but I don’t get the blogger haters. The bloggers and talk radio and the cable talking heads, like the old media, can drive a story into our consciousness if they are determined enough, but they can’t get a scalp if the facts don’t warrant it. Let’s say Jordan had said: “The troops did not adequately protect embedded reporters.” That may or may not be true — I have no idea. But it would not have been a big deal. If it were true, it would mainly be of interest to the media, not to their audience. If it were untrue, it would be yet another catty shot at military by CNN — yawn. But a million bloggers blogging 24/7 could not have turned something so vanilla into a scandal, let alone a firing offense. Jordan went down because, once attention was raised, it turned out that what he said was bad and indefensible. We may only have heard about it because of the bloggers, but they are the conduit, not the cause.

And the story here is not the bloggers but the MSM’s wilfull burying of the story even after it was undeniably a story. Even if you don’t think Jordan should have been canned, what earthly good reason is there for people in the news reporting business not to call for disclosure of a tape in connection with something that had become a story even if the MSM didn’t judge it to be a newsworthy at the start.

Imgaine listening to the MSM if the government were to say: “You press people really don’t need to be here in the courtroom watching what actually happens at the trial. We’ll decide what’s important and let you know.” How quickly do you figure CNN or the WSJ would be lecturing the planet on the “public’s right to know”? How quickly would they be screaming for transcripts of even the most uneventful court proceedings? I bet PDQ.