Actually, this was an almost decent piece of writing, despite the lack of sources. It does prove essentially that in trying to cover up the right wing's propagandistic brand of journalism it reveals it even more transparently. The airwaves are seemingly engulfed by the likes of the see-no-evil-hear-no-evil (unless one is speaking of Democrats) Limbaugh, Allen, Elder, et al. The other day I almost got through 15 minutes of Elder , the former Libertarian who swore he was a no-party guy until the Republicans lobotomized him and made him their shill. He even went so far as to give a wrong definition of cognitive dissonance in order to color his opinion that the book penned by the former Press Secretary had to be a lie. (Had my cousin's psychologist husband not written a scholarly book on the topic and explained it to me in detail years ago, I might not have known and thus understood the premise.) This piece would have been even better with more research and several more examples. That stated, it is an old axiomin high schooldebating that in order to argue cogently for any point of view, one must understand explicitly its counter-point. Whuile we hate to augment the ratings of these bozos in any way, it is, nonetheless imperitive to know whatthey are saying and why. This way, only serves to it strengthen the Democratic stand on any given topic.