<"The media is kind of weird these days on politics, and there are some major institutional voices that are, truthfully speaking, part and parcel of the Republican Party," said Mr. Gore in an interview with The Observer. "Fox News Network, The Washington Times, Rush Limbaugh—there’s a bunch of them, and some of them are financed by wealthy ultra-conservative billionaires who make political deals with Republican administrations and the rest of the media …. Most of the media [has] been slow to recognize the pervasive impact of this fifth column in their ranks—that is, day after day, injecting the daily Republican talking points into the definition of what’s objective as stated by the news media as a whole."

Nice try, but the media entities he mention are wildly profitable--Rush makes money hand over fist, thank you, and is proud of it--and none of them are "financed" by anyone except advertisers. As for "talking points," it is a common myth that Rush gets his marching papers from the RNC. In point of fact, there is actually very little offline communication between him and the Republicans, although he enthusiastically gives them advice over the radio. The Republicans don't tell him what to say, and doubt anyone could.

Now, if what Gore means is that these sources pump their own proudly conservative viewpoints out, then he's right.

"Something will start at the Republican National Committee, inside the building, and it will explode the next day on the right-wing talk-show network and on Fox News and in the newspapers that play this game, The Washington Times and the others. And then they’ll create a little echo chamber, and pretty soon they’ll start baiting the mainstream media for allegedly ignoring the story they’ve pushed into the zeitgeist. And then pretty soon the mainstream media goes out and disingenuously takes a so-called objective sampling, and lo and behold, these R.N.C. talking points are woven into the fabric of the zeitgeist."

Again, I have yet to see ANY conservative talk show host that takes anything from the R.N.C. If anything, half the time they're reaming the Republicans out for not being conservative enough. On the other hand, you can track media liberal commentary quite easily to a single set of talking points. Anybody remember everyone in the media suddenly learning the word "gravitas" in the same two days?

And during a lengthy discourse on the history of political journalism in America, Mr. Gore said he believed that evolving technologies and market forces have combined to lower the media’s standards of objectivity.



"The introduction of cable-television news and Internet news made news a commodity, available from an unlimited number of sellers at a steadily decreasing cost, so the established news organizations became the high-cost producers of a low-cost commodity," said Mr. Gore. "They’re selling a hybrid product now that’s news plus news-helper; whether it’s entertainment or attitude or news that’s marbled with opinion, it’s different. Now, especially in the cable-TV market, it has become good economics once again to go back to a party-oriented approach to attract a hard-core following that appreciates the predictability of a right-wing point of view, but then to make aggressive and constant efforts to deny that’s what they’re doing in order to avoid offending the broader audience that mass advertisers want. Thus the Fox slogan ‘We Report, You Decide,’ or whatever the current version of their ritual denial is."



Gore, like many other leftists, is really pissed off that Americans have more sources for their news than the three networks and major newspapers that used to funnel the liberal party line for them. In as many words, he laments the availability of news from an increasing number of sellers at decreased cost. Of course the free market in ANY commodity has always been the Left's worst enemy.

As for the "party-oriented" approach being profitable, one wonders why a "party-oriented" approach from a leftist point of view is not making as much money. One might almost think more consumers agreed with Fox than with MSNBC news...

Democrats sympathetic to Mr. Gore frequently maintain that "political insiders"—the media, big donors, professional politicians—paint an overly pessimistic picture of his viability as a candidate and suggest that his position has been strengthened by the party’s poor showing in the midterm elections several weeks ago. "There are all these people in the party who have been adamant that we need a fresh face," said Joe Andrew, who headed the Democratic National Committee during the Clinton administration. "I think a lot of those people are taking another look at Al Gore now, saying that, ‘Well, at least there’s someone out there with big ideas, who looks good on TV, who looks more comfortable with himself.’ I think it’s simply a fundamental reaction to the sense that he is a serious candidate with serious ideas."



But while Mr. Gore has a solid core of support, many Democrats do want a fresh face to take on George W. Bush in 2004. The same formal and informal polls that show Mr. Gore with substantially larger backing than any other Democratic hopeful also show that a great many donors, opinion makers and party leaders are uncommitted—and leaning toward Anyone But Gore.



Gore is the choice of the Democrats according to formal and informal polls of Democrats? Maybe.

Some other numbers:

A New York Times poll shows Gore with a 19 percent favorable view of Gore, compared with a 43 percent unfavorable view. The Times tries to spin this as best they can as a ratio of "almost two to one." Hey, you do the math. It's a lot more than two to one.

On the other hand, according to this poll of registered voters, 54 percent say that if you had the election today, they would vote for President Bush compared to 28 percent for Al Gore.

Okay, now THAT is "almost" two to one. Regardless of what you think happened in Florida, I think there are a lot of people now who would "intend" to vote for Bush, and are now damn happy he won. Including a lot of Democrats.

Between Bush and Hillary, it's 59 percent Bush and 24 percent Hillary. Anyone else want to step up?

For now, Mr. Gore can only attempt to explain what motivates the ceaseless lampooning he continues to face from America’s columnists and commentators. "That’s postmodernism," he offered. "It’s the combination of narcissism and nihilism that really defines postmodernism, and that’s another interview for another time, if you’re interested in it."

Okay. Guess that's as good an explanation as any. After all, it simply CAN'T be his ideas.