I have some small problems with this editorial. Last two paragraphs:
"The performance of this country's finest news organizations in the run-up to the Iraq invasion of March 2003 will be remembered as a disgrace. To be sure, it was an angry, fearful time, and independent-minded reporting might not have been heard above the drumbeats of patriotism and war. But it's hard to read the hand-wringing confessionals from news organizations that now realize that they got the prewar story wrong without concluding that the real problem was they were afraid to tell the truth.
Resisting undue outside influence is part of what news professionals do, even when that influence comes from the public they're honor-bound to serve. It's hard enough to get the story right, without holding it hostage to an open-ended negotiation with zealots who believe they already know what the story is."
So, the main problem with mainstream media is that it is giving too much [credibility, voice, something along those lines] to the right wing lies. Um, no. The main problem with mainstream media is that it has believed itself to be apolitical and balanced when it is not.
If you don't believe this, I don't know how to convince you.
Besides, think of these key words from the entire story: cadre, warriors, hostile, corrupted, extortion, hostage, zealots. Especially after a large number of Russian children were killed by Islamic terrorists, those words don't bring first to mind right wing bloggers.