By Glenn Reynolds ..

Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post looks at some journalistic errors and observes:

“Reporters at President Bush's prime time news conference two weeks ago were relentless in pressing him to admit "any errors in judgment," or his "biggest mistake," or that he owes the American people an "apology." But when news organizations screw up, their executives often fail to admit culpability or tell readers and viewers they're sorry. In many cases, they merely issue canned statements and slink into the shadows without answering questions from the sort of nosy reporters they employ to harass everyone else.

And, as the implosions at USA Today and the New York Times make clear, newsrooms are sometimes more dysfunctional and paralyzed than the government agencies they cover, with top editors uninformed about problems with subordinates, missing obvious warning signals and/or intimidating their staff against bringing them bad news.”

Instead of apologizing, I'd rather they did a better job.  But this phenomenon is a familiar one: the same people who ruthlessly criticize, well, everybody else, are awfully thin-skinned when people point out that they've dropped the ball.

We often hear from journalists that they're the "fourth estate," operating as a check on the government in the name of the people.  But we didn't elect them.  And they don't fulfill that function very well.  It's not a matter of asking the "tough questions."  As the press conference example last week indicates, there's more far more posturing and gotcha-ing going on than “tough” or even informed questioning.

Jay Reding notes, "What we're seeing now is a struggle between what the media thinks it is and what it has actually become."  And what it has become isn't pretty.  This has led President Bush to very successfully challenge the press's claim to represent the public.

I like to point out media bias.  And bias is a real issue.  But the bigger media issue isn't ideology.  It's competence. Or, more to the point, the lack thereof.