Holy Shit, Safire is almost making sense!!!!

Maybe it's because he's a short timer but I read today's William Safire column and didn't have as much to get upset about. He's still pretty much the Safire that I grown to hate but he says some things I never thought I would hear him say. So here we go:

1. On the challenge from bloggers: The "platform" - print, TV, Internet, telepathy, whatever - will change, but the public hunger for reliable information will grow. Blogs will compete with op-ed columns for "views you can use," and the best will morph out of the pajama game to deliver serious analysis and fresh information, someday prospering with ads and subscriptions. The prospect of profit will bring bloggers in from the meanstream to the mainstream center of comment and local news coverage.

On national or global events, however, the news consumer needs trained reporters on the scene to transmit facts and trustworthy editors to judge significance. In crises, large media gathering-places are needed to respond to a need for national community.

Not much to argue with there. I think he has it pegged pretty well.

2. On resentment of media elitism by awakened cultural and religious voices: They're not crazies. Their opinions on stem cells and same-sex marriage are newsworthy and not an assault on church-state separation. Protests at "wardrobe malfunction" and campaigns against state-sponsored gambling are neither bluenosed nor repressive.

But there is no need for sensible seculars in mainstream media to feel an urgent call to get right with religion. It's O.K. to say "Merry Christmas" at the end of a newscast without worrying about equal greeting for Ramadan and Hanukkah and Kwanzaa and all the rest.

I do believe that the Radical Right flat earthers are crazy and dangerous. I do agree a newscaster should be able to say Merry Christmas however, I do and I'm an athiest.

3. On judges jailing journalists for refusing to reveal sources: Mainstream media have good reason to be angry about being unfairly jumped on, and no reason to be depressed and docile for fear of seeming self-interested. If the press can't promise sources that we won't rat on them, coverage would cease to be robust and uninhibited; government and corporate corruption would go unreported.

But why should mainstream media be alone in resisting this nationwide judicial assault on the people's right to know wrongdoing? Where is the legal profession, which should not only see danger in an unrestrained judiciary, but would be next in line to lose much of its own privilege of confidentiality with clients? Where are consumer groups, often reliant on whistleblower revelations in newspapers? And where are the preachers who may be threatened with contempt of court for not testifying about penitents engaged in peculation?

I really can't argue with this.

4. On mainstream media's feeling that President Bush doesn't give a hoot about what we say or write: That's his loss more than ours. He may deliver an uplifting second Inaugural Address, but still does not appear thoughtful or adept at answering questions.

The reason: Bush holds quarterly, rather than the traditional monthly, news conferences. This lack of regular rehearsal costs him familiarity with issues, and costs his administration the discipline of deadlines for suggested answers. As the debates showed, Bush gets better with practice. He is not as good as he thinks he is when winging it.

" That's his loss more than ours." Actually it's our loss that we have a president that doesn't have a clue as to what's going on and that's the reason he can't answer questions.

5. On widespread suspicion of political bias in news coverage: Here's the good news: Bad news is newsier than good news. Even when media try to be "fair and impartial," they can be expected to annoy rather than please the party in power. That's because clean government needs a snooping adversary, not a cheerleader; the Outs need help from the press to hold the Ins accountable.

Today that media bias is undeniably liberal. That's natural when conservatives are the Ins; five years ago, the bias often ran the other way. As future elections near, that tilt must disappear from news pages to let the voters do the tilting. Some mainstreamers flopped on necessary election evenhandedness in 2004 and should be grimly thankful for a corrective kick in the teeth from other media, bloggers and righteous right-wingers.

This is a real mixed bag. This line: "That's because clean government needs a snooping adversary, not a cheerleader; the Outs need help from the press to hold the Ins accountable.", is right on the money. The rest is largely old Safire. Unfortunately that's what has been lacking, a snooping adversary. The "liberal" press has been the Bush cheerleading squad the last four years.

Still Safire but a making little more sense than usual. It only left me shaking my head a little.