The blah's of extremist blogs

Joel Achenbach's blog in the Washington Post was interesting the other day (the 18th of July to be exact). He's commenting on an article about political blogging written by David Von Drehle

... Surely there is still a place in American society for journalists who try to present the facts as best as they can be ascertained, and let the readers and viewers make up their own minds. Crazy as that sounds.

The two bloggers in the DVD story strike me as intellectually rigid, mere spouters of dogma, and with every utterance provide a vivid reminder of why so many blogs are a drag. Political blogs too often are mires of political fundamentalism. A fundamentalist, whether political or religious, has a hard time being a good storyteller, because every story ends the same. You know how it's going to turn out! Look at all that Karl Rove stuff from the Right and the Left: The analysis of his actions precisely tracks the pre-existing political bias. [Except when I write about Rove, in which case you learn amazing stuff, like the fact that he was once in the cast of Spanky and Our Gang.]

I like mainstream print and radio journalism. It has it's place, and it's important. He's right, it is a drag to read extremists on either side of the fence. What's interesting is wrestling with the ideas from a complete perspective, and seeing the truth and what's right outside of politics. An unbiased source is nearly impossible to find. But at least the mainstream media tries, despite it's many flaws, to give you some ideas to sort through, rather than handing you an opinion on a platter. I don't listen to Air America or Rush for that reason. I try not to write like them either.