The war I'm referring to is the about the language that's used to describe what's happening in our country, the world, and our political process.
Have you read Alterman's "What Liberal Media?" I recommend it. If you question any of his claims, check his references. He lists them, unlike most of those he's examining.
Reading that book has opened my eyes to media leaning right in their efforts to be "even-handed". The "liberal media" meme has been so widely accepted by the media that they will self-skew right to avoid appearing liberal, even when all they're doing is reporting the unadulterated facts.
Halperin's pointing this out in the Note last year was enough to send the right wing pundits into a lather. He himself is studiously apolitical, but they wanted his head on a platter, for being so liberal as to suggest such a thing.
Here's evidence from today's news about the behavior to which I refer:
In this article, Shailagh Murray and Charles Babington write:
Activist groups on the left and right have grown increasingly intent on helping to shape the judiciary in recent years, as rulings on abortion, school prayer and other topics have stirred controversy. Stakes are especially high this year, senators say, as many expect the first Supreme Court vacancy in more than a decade.
Boldface emphasis added
This seems very even handed. Unfortunately, it's not the whole truth. While the right has been trying to cram the courts full of conservative ideologues, the left have been entirely focused on keeping them from getting away with it.
When I wrote and pointed this out to Babington and asked for evidence of recent leftist court packing behavior, he pointed me at several organizations that are all trying to stop the aforementioned conservative activity. There's no mention on any of those sites about picking only leftist judges (though they clearly would prefer a liberal judiciary, packing the courts with them is the last thing on their mind in this political climate).
I hope you'll agree there's a difference between trying to stuff the courts full of extremists and trying to stop the other guys from doing so. Sure, both sides "are intent on helping to shape the judiciary." But the seemingly even handed coverage of the issue in the Post ignores this crucial difference.
It's like saying "both Mr. Jones and Mr. Smith have been involved in a shooting" when what actually happened was Mr. Jones intervened to stop Mr. Smith from shooting someone.