David Broder, of course, is a -- if not the -- pillar of the dread Washington Media Establishment. At the same time, it's become so fashionable to mock him these days, one has to wonder if he really is such a pillar. Everyone's doing it, after all. Under the circumstances, it's worth noting that given that we live in a country of 300 million, that one man has ridiculous opinions is hardly surprising. What is surprising is that he has this column on The Washington Post and makes frequent appearances on Meet The Press. And what's much less fashionable than Broder-bashing is noting that Broder would be irrelevant if not for the way key gatekeepers -- Tim Russert, editors at the Post, executives at NBC News -- keep rammig him down the throats of Americans interested in politics.
And what, I have to wonder, is Broder's economic value to the Post? At the margin, how many readers would the Post lose if it didn't carry his column? I have a hard time imagining it's a large number. And yet, to harshly condemn Broder's enablers would simply reduce one's own chances of having op-eds appear in the Post and so forth. Unless, of course, one were a conservatives. Conservatives, after all, can regularly slander both "the media" as a whole and any number of specific media organizations without ill effect.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Better understanding of this otherwise impenetrable mystery might be had, if you think of the journamalism group as a *tribe*, along the lines of which digby, et al considers conservatives and liberals.
Specifically, it needn't be about money. The tribe-picture is intended to begin to answer the question sure to follow.
Posted by sherifffruitfly | April 26, 2007 8:34 PM