There's Only One Way

to understand what's really going on. Be a contrarienne and search out as much as you can about the topic (this will take between four and 12 hours a day, seven days a week, for the rest of your life).
Or just read me. Because I have become compulsive about it.
Today, enough people out in the 'sphere were talking about something on Media Matters that I went over there and read it.
Normally Media Matters is too inside baseball unless you're a junkie, and contrariennes are not junkies, they're smart. Except for Founding Mother.
Anyway, if you still believe that there are any reliably competent and honest reporters out there, consider this snippet:

Searching the recent news archives, it's hard to find many articles or television segments that reported on Clinton's symbolic nomination and also mentioned that runner-up Jerry Brown had been nominated in '92 or that Jesse Jackson had been nominated in '88 or that Gary Hart had been nominated in '84. (You get the idea.)
When The New York Times reported on Clinton's pending nomination, it made no reference to historical precedents. Neither did The Boston Globe, nor The Wall Street Journal, nor The Washington Post. And on and on and on.
On CNN, Jack Cafferty commented, "The Democratic National Convention is now shaping up to be quite a party for Hillary Clinton. Her name will be placed in nomination. She'll give a prime-time address." He made no mention that that's what previous runners-up had done at conventions.