Vanity Fair is Hollywood's "news" magazine. It's a regular kiss-up reinforce the views of the Hollywood elite.

Molly's piece is what Hollywood types consider "hard journalism" and it feeds them exactly what their level of intellect wants to hear.

At a certain point you can prostitute your knowledge. I could write a novel about the values of abortion--and could write an equally compelling novel about the value of abstention and the pro-life movement.

When one has enough ability to write compelling and readable paragraphs, one can choose the target market of those paragraphs and one can feed them whatever one chooses, making them eloquent, elucidating or eaven earth-shattering when the need is there.

I could write pro-war pieces or anti-war pieces with equal ease. Many journalists can too. However if you are writing a piece for Vanity Fair you will only receive payment and that byline if you write them in a succinct, 'honest' anti-war tone.

Prostituting knowledge is done all the time. Writers are forever dancing between the devil and their inner angels as they choose whom they allow to butter their bread.

The real story here is the public itself. That the masses opinions and knowledge come largely from such unreliable sources of opinionated material; that history is like a foreign language to most residents of earth and they prove it daily.

In a relativistic world truths and lies are temporally and spacially oriented. If you are not in the right place and time lies are truths and vice-versa.