"I'm not following this story because I think it's a freaking Barack Obama reality show..."

"I'm following it because I want to know what it means for my own goddamned life and for the lives of the people I care about.
Again, I apologize if I come off like I'm angry, but I'm not kidding when I say that every goddamned important political story seems to get reported this way:

"Supreme Court's heath-care ruling could deal dramatic blow to Obama presidency"

or

"Slowdown in US job growth deals double blow to Obama"

"And, as smarter commentators have pointed out, there's an even bigger problem with this: It actually implies that the issue itself is completely unimportant. For instance, if the courts overturn some regulation about mercury in the water or Congress blocks car mileage standards, it always gets reported as "A Blow to Environmentalists."

--------

This from the brilliant political story called "5 Ways to Spot a B.S. Political Story in Under 10 Seconds"

and which Washingon Pundit wrote this? NONE OF THEM. It's at Cracked.com. Yes, really. Don't be surprised now.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-ways-to-spot-b.s.-political-story-in-under-10-seconds/

Yes, Cracked wrote a better story criticizing DC/Washington "journalism" coverage of our political system our goverment than the Washington Post could write, than nearly any of the established political pundits, usually the ones with columns in "print" media.

Just like some of the most nuanced, accurate coverage of US journalism isn't on "Reliable sources" or the Washington Post/NY Times ombudsman's page, but on the Daily Show or the Colbert Report.

What bothers me about US political media journalism isn't just that it's vacuous, horse race coverage. It's just that when they report it in that way, it's clear to me that they just don't give a shit. It's like they went to journalism school and instead of learning objectivity, they instead thought they were being taught to write like they don't give a shit.