This is excellent. Rosen makes a very fine, careful point about the true mission of the investigative journalist. Even as he praises David Barstow, and the New York Times by extension, for an excellent bit of journalism, conducted with a depth and vigor for which Rosen seems almost nostalgic, he reveals the fallacy of attempting to report "fairly" on a political stance that's manifestly misguided. He shows us that this is the status quo in American political journalism, and we begin to realize that this is rather frightening.

Insightful commentary about objectivity in journalism, as it applies to coverage of the Tea Party movement by the New York Times (see link). Jay Rosen applauds the depth of the NYT's story, but deplores its impartiality when reporting statements that appear false (e.g.: the Tea Party's claim of "impending tyranny" in America). It's an important and oft-debated point, and Rosen does a great job at articulating it again in this context. Food for thought, whether you agree with Rosen's views or not.

In a return to the blogging scene, Jay Rosen nails one of the primary problems with current journalism: it's seeming apparent refusal to take the side of fact if reporting facts.

Really excellent analysis of a troubling trend.

"To be manifestly agenda-less is journalistic bliss". I agree with this analysis. Why won't journalist write the entire truth about the insane rantings of the tea party movement. Especially since it is being promoted by the corporate sponsors which is almost completely overlooked.