What I meant is that the “right” form of journalism will be determined by consumer demand rather than the opinions of journalists themselves. This was not so true last century because there were relatively few printing presses and so the people who ran them had a lot more discretion. But nowadays there are so many options that consumers will be able to get exactly the style of journalism they want.

Obviously, that doesn’t mean there won’t be arguments about the best style of journalism, or that we can’t change readers’ minds about the kinds of journalism they ought to prefer. But it does mean that arguments by themselves are not going to carry the day. At the end of the day, readers will read what they want to read, and writers will have to adjust to that.

Couldn’t the normative question of what journalism *should* be connect to the materialistic viewpoint of different media dictating ideology? How would you respond to the claim that new media are fulfilling a desire for a type of journalism that doesn’t pretend to have a completely detached perspective?

That’s the point, and the reason is that many journalists are far from objective. What I’ve noticed in virtually ever piece of criticism directed at Weigel by journlists is no mention whatsoever of the factual correctnesss (or lack thereof) of his work.

The reason is obvious; most journalists don’t want somebody going over *their* work and seeing whether or not it was right. Especially after 8 years of Bush II, the Iraq War, and decades of financial sector cheerleading.

But that’s my point–I don’t think that any given news organization will necessarily change its approach. Rather, I think organizations like the Washington Post will shrink, losing market share to organizations like the Washington Independent, Ars Technica, etc. that have a more opinionated style.

Also, I think it’s a mistake to lump all opinionated forms of journalism together. Fox News is run by partisan hacks, and John Stossel is an ideological advocate who happens to do some reporting on the side. I don’t think either of those descriptions fits Dave, and while I don’t know Dave’s sources, he doesn’t seem to be having too much difficulty getting them to talk to him. Obviously, if you’re opinionated in a way that prevents you from doing your job as a journalist, then that’s bad. But I don’t think that means you have to go all the way to never expressing opinions about politics, as many traditional journalists do.

As an aside, isn’t the impartiality of the judges on the Supreme Court also a myth?

I spent some time at the Reason forums on Friday trying to defend Weigel (as an aside, I was surprised at how many libertarians were lashing out at a guy for failing to toe the party line). The idea that Weigel “misrepresented himself” as a die-hard conservative seemed to dominate the discussion. I find this to be more than a little ridiculous, given the fact that his entire record was a Google search away for anyone on the planet. If anything, it was WaPo that is guilty of false advertisement here; it almost seems like they decided on a “brand” for Weigel that had nothing to do with Weigel himself. Like Tim said, it looks as though the paper’s decision-makers failed to do their homework.

Anyway, I’ve got to agree with Sanchez: “What they apparently wanted was a movement hack to dole out indiscriminate praise to anyone claiming the mantle of conservatism.” This perfectly encapsulates the reaction from “the right” — completely intolerant of intellectual dissent among the ranks. These people are deliberately starving their own movement of philosophical vigor because…..well I’m not really sure why. But it’s certainly not endearing to someone looking in from the outside.

There is a tradeoff to opinionated reporting. Sometimes, it’s worth it. But I see no reason — none that you’ve mentioned, anyway — to think that most news organizations will change their approach anytime soon.

Time will tell, I suppose.