Bob's Place

Atlantic Blog works some more on the arrogance of Birmbaum (see below post). His point that there is a question about the standards of Birnbaum, et. al. certainly hits again to the heart of their arrogant hypocrisy. I believe he's right that they simply object to any competition:

The chamber is one of a growing number of advocacy groups that blur the distinction between legitimate media and propaganda to promote their causes.

This last remark would be a lot more helpful if Birnbaum would tell us what constitutes "legitimate media" and how it differs from propaganda. Is legitimate media defined by being more accurate? And always or on average? Is is defined as not having an agenda? But reporters routinely have prior beliefs (or an ideology if you disagree with it), so is it defined as not being paid for advocacy? In that case, Walter Duranty was a propagandist because he was paid by Stalin to spread lies, whereas a Chomsky piece would not be propaganda because Chomsky probably believes his drivel.