For decades, journalists have held themselves up as the only honest brokers in the game, the only people who could be trusted to bring unvarnished truth to the befuddled masses. They nobly (at least in their estimation) prowled the shadows, ready to pounce on any inane comment in order to hold it up as proof positive of prejudice/corruption/bias/hypocracy/opposition to the cause du jour.
And The Daily Caller has proven the journalists to be even greater hypocrites than those the press annointed themselves to exposing.
In a steady, daily drip starting at the beginning of last week, The Daily Caller has published examples of the members of Journolist discussing how to spin the news to protect the Obama campaign and how to take heat off Democrats by stirring up fake racial controversies, speculating how to eliminate Fox News, considering whether to make their support for Obama overt and choosing not to, and today the Caller is showcasing efforts to manipulate news coverage.
This begs one enormous question: why should the press be trusted any more than anyone or anything else?
The answer is that they should not. Yes, I realize that was pretty obvious. But the implications of this answer are not nearly as obvious, for now it creates a new information problem. What is the truth, and who says it is?