Seriously. And even funnier, they "prove" their point by attacking conservative blogs, in detail, but not liberal blogs (sure, they complain about both, both only provide details about conservative blog excesses):
Because political blogs are predictable, they are excruciatingly boring. More acutely, they promote intellectual disingenuousness, with every constituency hostage to its assumptions and the party line. Thus the right-leaning blogs exhaustively pursue second-order distractions--John Kerry always providing useful material--while leaving underexamined more fundamental issues, say, Iraq. Conservatives have long taken it as self-evident that the press unfavorably distorts the war, which may be the case; but today that country is a vastation, and the unified field theory of media bias has not been altered one jot.Yes, because the Wall Street Journal's positions are never predictable. Actually, he raises a fair point for discussion. But not about blogs. Rather, about every partisan media - and that includes FOX, the WSJ, and blogs. All have a partisan political agenda, unlike the real media, such as the Washington Post, the New York Times, or ABC/NBC/CBS. They are real news people - whether they do their job well is another matter. But they do not exist to push a partisan agenda, which is why conservative hate them so - independent arbiters of fact are dangerous to small minds.
In any case, yeah, there's always room to question whether you're simply preaching to the choir. Whether you're helping find the truth when you have a political agenda behind your words. But I'll still put my writing and thinking above FOX News's - or the Wall Street Journal editorial page's - any day.
