I took this post down because, in reading it, I found parts to be something other than they should be, clear. I may repost it after revision. I do want to be careful to make sure that even though I do not like the fact that our “free press” is so corporate bound that “free,” as in free to present the truth unadulterated, is difficult to believe possible, the press is not, as some would have it, villainous, nor should it be ignored. I do not want it taken to mean that I mean that good people with good intentions and great abilities to get the story right are not members of the press corps. But one has to wonder where lines are drawn and when they are crossed. Too cozy with whom is an issue too as issues of access are real and complex. So, I have more thinking to do here but I do think that the fete is a sign that too many in the press love the kind of elegance that is a part of the life of the elite. What a members might do to gain membership in the club and how that might affect thinking (and reporting) is another think deserving contemplation. As for Michelle Wolf and the organization sponsoring the Correspondent’s dinner, denouncing her after hiring her does tell us something about something of importance. Defending the indefensible was given a nasty twist that produced something rather knotty but the focus was on naughty instead,
