Where is the mystery about Rahm stories? Mainstream media reporters hate hippie bloggers. Don’t know why. If I had to guess I would say that hippie bloggers make criticisms that cut deeper than the broad-brush personality-based drivel that right wingers typically serve up. A lot of managing editors (the guys who assign and approve stories, and who often lean Republican) want to be “more like FOX.” Bob Somerby has an Indiana Jones vault of evidence that most reporters arbitrarily split the difference between parties and cast around for excuses to punch hippies because it might blunt ‘liberal media’ criticisms (ha ha, I know, right). To some degree every case is a unique snowflake.
Newsroom staff don’t know much about policy and (like most people) almost nothing about Senate procedure but they can do personality and horserace in their sleep, and “access” is practically a currency in their world. No, scratch that last part. In DC ‘access’ is not practically a currency. It determines your status in the cocktail party hierarchy. It gives you job security. Getting a cold call from someone at Rahm’s level is like a researcher publishing in Science or Nature. After that you’re a made man. Compared with the agony of reporting health care minutiae compounded with Senate rules that even most Senators can’t reliably explain, this Rahm crap is a delicious chocolate sundae that makes you skinnier and whitens your teeth. It hardly seems like a disincentive that it also pisses off Media Matters and gives Somerby the fits.