Howard Kurtz may have his share of institutional biases--he works for both The Washington Post and CNN--but he is always insightful and worth reading, even if one ultimately disagrees with his conclusions. This morning is a case in point. In analyzing the Glenn Beck vs. Van Jones square-off, Kurtz describes the familiar pattern of a blow-up:
It has become a familiar chain reaction: Talk-show hosts whip up a noisy controversy, which hits higher decibels as it spreads to the establishment media, which costs some unfortunate soul his job.
Right. But now there's a difference. Kurtz makes the useful point that the Beck-Jones blowup changed the model, because the establishment media wasn't a part of the fight:
But now the middleman -- the journalistic gatekeepers of yore -- may no longer be necessary.
By the time White House environmental adviser Van Jones resigned over Labor Day weekend, the New York Times had not run a single story. Neither had USA Today, which also didn't cover the resignation. The Washington Post had done one piece, on the day before he quit. The Los Angeles Times had carried a short article the previous week questioning Glenn Beck's assault on the White House aide. There had been nothing on the network newscasts.
As noted, I don't agree with everything that Kurtz writes, but he's always worth reading. And I agree with this. The world has changed. Fox is a media superpower all by itself.
