On media as an institutional force

One of the refreshing things about the blogosphere, to use the clumsy term which is currently around, is that it is not yet an institutional force whose purpose is to make money. So, discussions exist on it which address how for-profit media isn't meant to be honest, probing, or critical in regard to large "how the system works" issues.

In a way that I agree with, A Tiny Revolution commented on Maureen Dowd's assertion that "In American history all of our great traumas -- Vietnam, Watergate, Iran-contra, Iraq, Harriet Miers -- came from presidents' personal foibles..."

A Tiny Revolution: Maureen Dowd And The Tao Of Stupidity; Also, A Joke:
Let's take one of her examples, Vietnam. Our involvement there covered the terms of six presidents: Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and Ford. And our policy through each of them was largely the same.

So...did each of these six presidents have the same personal foibles? OF COURSE NOT. Yet Dowd can say this without understanding how weirdly dumb it is, and Howard Kurtz can record it without understanding it himself.

I submit it is no accident Dowd and Kurtz have risen to the heights of their respective institutions. I further submit this is because institutions select for individuals who do not analyze institutions. This makes them, even the ones with some native intelligence, appear peculiarly stupid.