Some of the media commentary around the debt ceiling bemoans the state of the partisanship in Washington. Much of the chatter is about a supposed failure to compromise. As Josh Marshall argues, "this is simply false, even painfully so." By any reasonable standard, the White House and the Democratic leadership have made an array of drastic compromises in order to win favor with Republicans--who are basically refusing to go along, since denying Obama any kind of "victory" is a key part of their electoral strategy for 2012.

But in corporate media, "balance" is essential. So both "sides" must be held responsible, never mind the facts. I was struck by this comment from host Christiane Amanpour on ABC's This Week this Sunday (7/24/11):

This week with tempers flaring, the rhetoric has boiled over. Exhibit A, the war of words between two Florida congressmembers, Republican Allan West and Democrat Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.

Wasserman-Schultz fired the first shot on the House floor, criticizing West for supporting a debt deal that would cut Medicare.

West's response, a furious e-mail to his colleague when he said, "You are the most vile, unprofessional and despicable member of the U.S. House of Representatives. You have proven repeatedly that you are not a lady and, therefore, shall not be afforded due respect from me."

So how does Washington move past this partisan rancor?

Excuse me? Wasserman-Schultz criticized West's support for a particular bill. She didn't say anything outrageous--which is why ABC didn't air a clip or even quote from her speech, the one where she "fired the first shot." West's intemperate "you are not a lady" response would suggest he's the one with the problem here. But you can't say it that way. Just like you're not supposed to say that Republicans are refusing to support Barack Obama's very Republican budget offers.

Posting to the Columbia Journalism Review's Behind the News blog, Megan Garber (5/26/09) catches New York Times public editor Clark Hoyt espousing "a peculiar brand of institutional defensiveness" in his May 23 column:

One that plays itself out via divisiveness--and via, in particular, a false dichotomy that aggrandizes Times reporters and dismisses those who are not. In particular, those nagging, nattering bloggers. (Outsiders! Pouncers! Rougher-uppers!) And he does so right in his lede: There are those "within" the Times, "trying to protect the paper's integrity"…and then there are those "outside" it, "ready to pounce on transgressions by Times journalists."

Garber contention that "such thinking represents all too well the protective, entitled, wagon-circling attitude that so many people resent about the Times--and about mainstream journalism more generally"--even comes after choosing to "leave aside the fact that Hoyt's column vastly underplays the transgressions in question within it":

MoDowd’s, in particular. (After a quick, he-said/she-said summary of the scandal, Hoyt declares: "I do not think Dowd plagiarized, but I also do not think what she did was right.... If the words are not hers, she must give credit." And then he moves on.)

For the record, even Dowd herself admits having lifted lines wholesale from Talking Points Memo blogger Josh Marshall.