I read this from Atrios earlier today, talking about the war in Iraq:

Ezra asks:

When will the media realize Bush doesn’t care what they think, cease talking about what he should do, and begin, relentlessly and mercilessly, talking about what he is doing?

Never.

This has been another edition of simple answers to simple questions.

But, okay, I can’t resist the longer answer. Magical thinking has long pervaded this entire enterprise, and the pundits who supported this whole thing long ago decided that they could evade responsibility for their role in this by continuing to come up new Pony Plans. They can’t come to grips with the fact that this whole enterprise is doomed - and, in fact, has long been doomed - and they can’t come to grips with the fact that no matter what they say George Bush is the decider.

The choice has never been between Pundit Fantasy Plan and getting out. The choice has always been between George Bush’s Plan and getting out. The punditocracy has chosen to operate in the fantasy realm, pretending that their Pundit Fantasy Plan is an option. It’s allowed them to continue to avoid looking at the real choice and concluding, as anyone should, that getting out is a better choice than continuing with The Decider’s Plan.

And why are they doing that? Because they’d rather be wrong than agree with the dirty fucking hippies, even though few of us actually smell like patchouli. The impact of their fantasy thinking is to ensure that George Bush continues to be able to fuck things up. And they say we’re unserious.

It’s not just that they’d rather be wrong, which is obviously not the case. It’s that they don’t want to admit that they are wrong. The pundits, which provide much of the political analysis in the United States, amazingly have a stake in this war. They have a piece, as much as the Republicans, in seeing this war succeed. They chose a side, and with it became truly biased in their analysis and reporting.

The Republicans, for all of their other flaws, have done one thing well. They have co-opted the media into choosing a side. By using accusations of liberal bias, of anti-religiousness, of being anti-American or traitorous, they have convinced the national punditocracy to own these policies as if they were the government. When you read journalism scholars talk about rollback, it’s really about making the press choose sides.

This practice was perfected in the Bush years as they chose winners and losers in the media space by granting exclusive interviews with only friendly outlets and by setting aggressive ground rules for interviews. It is his one, singular accomplishment and likely the only aspect of his legacy that will remain long after he leaves office.