Do you recall when you used to think that journalists had insight and knowledge of facts that you didn't? OK, I admit that I never thought that in my adult life, but there was a time when I was going to school – and beyond that I thought journalists actually were the thinking class.
So what was I thinking? The truth is, I wasn't. I keep saying that I didn't become very politically minded until Clinton took office. Sure I saw the difference between Reagan and Carter, but I didn't think of it in terms of ideology – just competence. And I relied on journalists, many of whom I'd now be ashamed to say I respected, to supply me with the "facts" and perspective. To give you an idea, Sam Donaldson was one.
OK, so here's James Taranto to put all that in perspective now:
Great Moments in Editorial Writing
"Israel's blockade of Gaza is crumbling," opines the Washington Post:
But the solution is not as simple as simply ending the checks on sea and land traffic by Israel. What's needed is a new regime that addresses the legitimate needs of Palestinians in Gaza without further empowering Hamas and its patron, Iran.
Eureka! It's that simple. If only someone had thought of this before.
Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Times editorial page offers these deep thoughts:
It's a drumbeat on the right: The Obama administration is in deliberate denial about the existence of "Islamic terrorism." . . . There is some truth in this criticism. The administration has assiduously avoided terms that recognize the distinct threat posed by those who cite Islam as a rationalization for terror. . . . So what should the proper terminology be? How about "terrorism, carried out in the name of Islam"?
Another problem solved. Now can we send a team of editorialists to the Gulf of Mexico to plug that damn hole?