When The Press Doesn't Do Its Job

Here is Brad DeLong doing the job because the press believes it job is to act as stenographers who simply "report" what they hear. There is no obligation to try to understand what people are saying and compare it to what they have said in the past and test its credibility.

Funny, the framers of the Constitution thought a free press was important enough to enshrine the rights of a free press into the Constitution. But I really doubt the framers of the Constitution viewed their job as making sure that stenographers had special rights so that they could simply repeat what they heard. The free press of the Constitution is an aggressive free press that stands up to the rich, the powerful, the political elite and calls them to account.

Here is the example of Brad DeLong calling the "reporter" David Broder to account:

David Broder is--yet again--lying his head off this morning:

David S. Broder: Accountability, but at What Cost?: I agree on the importance of accountability for illegal acts and for serious breaches of trust by government officials -- even at the highest levels. I had no problem with the impeachment proceedings against Richard Nixon...

David Broder, July 10, 1974:

The Highest Broderism of Them All: A Historical Document: [T]he case of Richard Nixon is moving inexorably toward... the House vote on impeachment. No one knows what the outcome of that vote will be, for it depends on the weight of the evidence the committee has still to assemble.... Suppose there are few Republican defections and that enough Democrats cross the line to exonerate Mr. Nixon of every charge leveled against him.... Legally, that would be the end of the matter.... [P]olitically, the fireworks would just be starting....

[A] tidal wave of [pro-Nixon] public sentiment... would sweep over the Congress.... Nixon's spokesmen... the impeachment investigation ordered by the Democratic leadership last October is nothing but a partisan assault on the integrity of the presidential office. If the Judiciary Committee were repudiated... the White House charge would surely have been proven to the public's satisfaction.

The President's supporters in the country would cry vengeance against a Congress.... Democratic candidates would find themselves on the defensive about a 93rd Congress which did little but posture on impeachment.... Resurgent Republicans, rallying around the vindicated President, would almost certainly regain the offensive, exploiting the predictable public reaction against the press and the Democratic Congress which had burdened the country with the Watergate-impeachment fiasco....

But not all Republican congressmen would be enjoying the turnabout. Those few dozen who had broken ranks to vote for impeachment would find themselves pariahs in the party of Richard Nixon.... Many of them would undoubtedly wonder whether there was any way to remain in public office as Republicans....

All this is well within the realm of possibility. All that has to happen is for the House to exonerate the President by voting no bill of impeachment...

Sounds like David Broder had problems--really big problems--with the campaign to impeach Richard Nixon, doesn't it?

David Broder: He came to Washington. He trashed the place. And it wasn't his place. It was never his place.

Who is David Broder? From Wikipedia you would think he was an estimable fellow with is Pulitzer prize and all his professional honours. But he is a right wing reporter who has a hard time seeing the big picture. He has too deep a love for the establishment, the elite, especially the Republican elite. Scroll down in the Wikipedia article to see what Broder has to say about the Clintons and Obama.