Was just watching Gwen Awful on NPR with some little commentary group of amiably conservative people listening to some woman called [I think] Barbara Hagherty go on about an important issue. This woman was a hog - she just loved listening to herself talk and it really didn't matter what the issue was, as long as she already had figured out her little buzzwords and cute phrases. ...
So since the issues do not matter anyway what makes them be conservative or liberal? I was thinking maybe they just choose the position that best fits what they are good at making stories up about. Maybe, though, it is simply that they take the position they most expect to be accepted by their surrounding pundit friends. Ah! to stand out among them and come up with a really clever turn of phrase. To be the first among pundits.
I was also wondering about percentages. These media people, many of them must have these huge egos and live for the sound of their own voice and not the truth. What percentage remain genuine? What percentage do not have huge over-arching egos?
One last, somewhat unrelated thought: this self consciousness of the reporter/pundit, this love of self expression, this search for admiration amongst their peers - this is what is at risk what a blog becomes more popular. I wonder, if you went back to the early days of Matt Yglesias whether he would be as self conscious early on as he is now. Kevin Drum changed a bit when he became part of the American Prospect. Kos has been pretty good at remaining focused on the issues.