Standards of credibility

It's no surprise that I think our national conversation is thoroughly messed up. It's dominated by bullshit and rampant insiderism. No opinion or analysis can be so vapid (think Cokie Roberts) or so wrong (for example, the whole industry of Iraq cheerleaders) that it lowers the credibility of any pundit. Andrew Sullivan is only the most recent exemplar.

At least - and it is a small virtue - Sullivan admitted error. The usual wingnut tactic, adopted as well by Karl Rove and the Bushists, is never to admit error. Everyone from Rush Limbaugh to Duhbya himself show by their behavior that they would rather be loudly, biliously wrong than to risk inconsistency with past errors and thus to risk learning. Learning is very dangerous to the conservative world view, since that view mostly consists of speaking from prejudice and fixing the facts around it to any degree necessary.

Even so, networks and talk show hosts continue to invite proven idiots to comment without the slightest acknowledgement that what they say today has little or no chance to be both insightful and true, based on past experience. Hell, Bill Bennett and Peter Beinart are in the Rolodexes already, why not take the lazy way and call them? Who needs a real anti-war liberal who actually got Iraq right in real time? With the guys we've had on before, we're getting known quantities who know the politesse of network talk. Even if the people who pay attention know that the known quantities often spout utterly specious useless crap.