Why I'm sad Yglesias is moving to CAP

Ross Douthat captures my feelings perfectly about the very talented Matthew Yglesias moving to Center for American Progress:

I respect his desire to be in the arena, TR-style, rather than on the sidelines, and there's no doubt a touch of concern-trolling involved whenever I fret about how the new progressive ecosystem seems hell-bent on imitating a lot of the things I find unpleasant about my own side of the partisan divide these days - the team-player mentality, the tendency toward cocooning, the obsession with policing orthodoxy, etc. Certainly, I have no doubt that Matt will remain Matt - independent-minded, acerbic, not suffering fools gladly - even under the umbrella of an explicitly partisan organization. But I also think that American politics benefits from having smart writers of both political persuasions who have one foot in movement politics and one foot outside it, and given that Matt is one of the smartest liberal writers in my generational cohort, I'm sad to see him giving up on this balancing act. He'll do well, and better than well, wherever he goes - but part of me suspects that over the long run he could do more, both for himself and for progressivism, if he were ever-so-slightly outside the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy rather working for it directly.

As Douthat notes, CAP is at the vanguard of the new breed of liberal groups who are explicitly adopting many of the worst aspects of movement conservatism, including a penchant for mass-producing dishonest spin. Even if Yglesias remains an independent thinker, as I'm sure he will, the structural incentives of working for a movement organization and appealing to a more movement-centric audience are not helpful.

Comments

[The Objective Historian]

Tee-hee ...

There is only one relatively unbiased media source presently: Fox News. Sorry.

Hmmm ... which Democrat will replace, with my condolences and general respect, Tim Russert, the "moderator" of Meet the Press who was ultra-liberal Mario Cuomo's staff member? Maybe it will be Hardball "moderator," Chris Matthews, Tip O'Neill's former staff member.

Fox news at least has genuinely staunch advocates on either side of the debate.

TOH

[Karen]

Fox News has no Liberal or Democratic pundits who host their own program.

Which, in my opinion, hinder its ability to conduct "fair" and "balanced" news coverage. I have heard Roger Ailes and Bill O'Reilly defend their position by stating that Greta Van Susteren has ties to the Democratic Party and that Shepard Smith has Leftist political views. Unfortunately, neither of them have shows which need any political analysis (Shepard merely reports the news of the day while Susteren reports on child kidnapings, murders, etc.). Liberals are always balanced by a conservative: Hannity and Colmes, The Beltway Boys, Fox News Sunday, etc.). While conservative pundits have many TV show in which they are the sole proprietor of: The Bill O”Rielly Show, Hannity’s America, Neil Cavuto, John Gibson (though they have suspended his broadcast for the time being)-just to name a few. Until this virtual fact is rectified, any notion that Fox News is “fair” and “balanced” is quite ridiculous.