In the most recent issue of The American Spectator, John Tabin reviews Chicago Law Professor Cass Sunstein’s new book, Republic.com 2.0 in which the professor laments the loss of influence experienced by the MSM and the rise of New Media.

Here’s a snippet:

In his 2001 book, Republic.com, the University of Chicago law professor fretted that democracy itself would be threatened by the “Daily Me”…that is, personalized media along the lines of Netvibes, Google Reader, and other customizable aggregating sites. Sunstein’s latest is a revised edition of that volume, retitled Republic.com 2.0. His basic thesis remains the same: The Internet provides each individual with the ability to build his own media environment, and this is a bad thing.

Sunstein believes that “general-interest intermediaries” serve important functions by promoting shared experiences and forcing people to encounter views and topics that they would not have sought out. Without them, we are in danger of becoming a polarized and fragmented citizenry. Sunstein is worried about the “echo chambers” and information cocoons” that the proliferation of individual choice may allow.”

I have to admit that I always experience an euphoric wave of schadenfreude upon hearing the laments and protestations of the liberal elite and other media types regarding the decline and fall of the MSM. It’s so humorous to me because their arguments miss the mark entirely. New Media arose because the MSM completely abdicated their responsibility of providing us the news sans the color of agenda journalism. The MSM simply does not deserve our trust, nor our readership, and they haven’t for quite some time.

New Media, Mr. Sunstein, rose to fill a void in the marketplace pure and simple. There were no peasants charging the gates here. If the MSM was not going to provide fair, balanced, and uncolored reporting of the news, why should we be ashamed of flocking to news sources that, at the very least, are upfront regarding what their ideological and partisan leanings?

The response to New Media by the MSM has only worsened their own plight. Instead of adhering to the high standards of mainstream journalism, of getting your facts straight, vetting your sources, having a healthy skepticism towards the bearers of fantastic stories that will not go on record- we get stories like the one that was broken today by the New York Times, scandalous gossip whose only source is anonymous former employees of Sen. McCain.

As if this is what we peasants want… Yes, many blogs are often little more than scandal rags that publish any old rumor that arrives in their inbox. But that is not why the great unwashed have flocked to them. Americans read blogs because they are looking for diversity of opinion that is not present in the MSM.

Antique Media institutions looked at the success of New Media, completely misunderstood their appeal, and decided that they needed to become more like the National Enquirer. The consequence of which is the triumph of tabloid journalism.

There is simply no longer any reason to show any deference to the once great journalist institutions like the New York Times, as there is more accountability and honor in the blogosphere than appears in their pages. If Race42008, or any other blog, where to publish extremely salacious rumors with absolutely no proof, my commenters (who are my customers) would let me have it instantly and my fellow blogs would fisk my work within minutes.

Let me give you an example to illustrate the differences between the editorial standards of Race42008 versus those of the New York Times.

In the course of working on the site over the past year, two potentially extremely damaging stories were divulged to me about two separate campaigns. In my opinion, the reporting of both of these stories had the potential to inflict terminal damage to both of the campaigns in question. I believed both of these stories to be true, because I trusted the source on each. However, I did not know these stories to be true, and since my sources would not permit their names to be used, I did not run them.

I made the right call. The fact that the editorial staff of the New York Times did not make the right call under the same circumstances tells you all you need to know about the state of affairs in the MSM. The bottom line is that you can trust teeny, tiny little sites like my own to operate with more journalistic integrity than the old “Gray Lady”.

Other thoughts…

This whole incident reminds me of Nixon’s famous quote, “We are all Keynesians now.” Apparently, everyone in the MSM are all “Rovians” now, as the tactic of hitting your opponent on his/her strength is the strategy of choice in this days.

John McCain is a man that cannot be bought. Democrats know this. His crooked enemies within his own party (a few of which currently reside in federal prison) know this. The North Vietnamese couldn’t buy him when they hung him from his broken arms and beat him with bamboo rods… And Glencairn Ltd. is going to be able to buy him? Give me a break…

The NYT knows that this story is particularly powerful because is cuts to the essence of the man that Sen. McCain is- an honest, straight-shooting reformer that is not for sale at any price. That is the real John McCain. Cast doubts on this among the electorate, and hello President Obama.

David Brody’s thoughts:

The NY Times has NO evidence in their story that there was actually a romantic relationship. No phone calls, e-mails, etc.

Will some people be put off by the alleged romantic relationship? Sure, but I’m not convinced it’s a killer when it comes to McCain’s courting of the evangelical vote.

It may be one more reason not to vote for McCain for some Evangelicals. But my hunch is that for the most part, this story does nothing to radically change McCain’s relationship with Evangelicals. I mean, what? All of a sudden Evangelicals won’t vote for him because of this, or now vote for Obama or Clinton? I don’t see it.

Also, the article actually has many cases where McCain is shown to take the high road when it comes to putting his principles first over the desires of lobbyists. Considering McCain’s track record on ethics reform, I think it’s a hard sell to suggest he’s some sort of phony on the issue.-(all emphasis mine)