Michael, I thought the Kurtz piece read as an anti-gush piece, the kind that uncritically recirculated all the old attack lines on Reagan: he implies the tax cut led to recession, that Reagan was uninterested in details, that Grenada and Lebanon weren’t great moments, ketchup was a vegetable, too many aides were corrupt, and siding with the contras was “enormously divisive.” Was the media right to echo these criticisms? Were these criticisms accurate? It doesn’t seem to matter. It’s especially sad to end the story by quoting Mark Hertsgaard, who wrote a ludicrous book titled “On Bended Knee” that suggested the media was way too soft on Reagan. His thesis wasn’t backed by any study of the actual news stories, just interviews with journalists and Reagan aides like David Gergen about their impressions.