Standard media fare is dominated by insensitive, egotistical anchors who care more about their image and the ability to deliver one-liners than they do about honest reporting and solid analysis. Hillary supporters railed against what they saw as a misogynistic tilt during the primaries. But that sense of things seemed less noteworthy than the racial undercurrent running just below the surface and occasionally bubbling up. In fact the real problem with media coverage is more general and far more insidious.

The glee with which pundits feed on the minutia of politics as if devouring some tidbit of celebrity gossip shows a lack of journalistic gravitas. The Fox News Channel is such a farcical turn on itself it is almost too ridiculous to be taken seriously. Yet a sizeable audience plants itself at the feet of Fox as if its news and views offered something of real value, leaving Fox viewers dangerously misinformed.

But while Fox may field the worst purveyors of intellectually challenged reportage, it isn't the only example of media intransigence. Sean Hannity may be a shameless McCain advocate, but, if Fox tops the list in terms of bias, other news organizations offer up guests who lean one way or the other but add little substance to the political debate. It's as if some producer runs around trying to find representatives of every opinion and throws them in front of a camera to provide a range of views, well founded or not.

Pundits like Chris Matthews on MSNBC, feel compelled to tell viewers how smart they are, as in ‘when I worked for so and so' or ‘I've been around politics since the beginning of time.' It isn't only that Matthews talks over his guests to showcase his vast knowledge of the way things work, it's his annoying habit of pretending to ask a guest tough questions and then saying at the end "you're a good guy" or something of the sort, as if to ensure his entrée into whatever sphere of influence that particular guest still commands.

And has there ever been anything more disgusting than the neutral treatment accorded Jesse Helms since his death? It may be unseemly to speak ill of the dead but, really, what lifts a master of bigotry and ignoble statesmanship to a place where he can be spoken of without a verbal shudder? And as an example of how screwed up the congressional seniority system can be, Jesse Helms as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was about as ludicrous as things get. His fear-mongering about black voter registration in North Carolina and his isolationist and narrow-minded views were an insult to anyone who values this country's democratic principles.

Disturbingly, Charles Black, who helped Helms craft his racist campaign strategy, is now part of the McCain inner circle. The infamous Helms "white hands" commercial suggesting a white man hadn't been hired because a "minority" had gotten his job is said to have been inspired by Black. He insisted, however, on the McNeil-Lehrer Newshour (11/5/90) that there was nothing racial about the campaign and that he only "...advised Jesse Helms to do what he's always done." Well, speaking for one of America's last great racists, that was probably enough.

Media's peripatetic Pat Buchanan proclaimed Helms one of ‘the most important conservatives next to Ronald Reagan.' That is an astonishing statement - - something less than a badge of honor for the former president and a real stretch for Helms. Presumably, conservatives needn't adhere to the Helms racist approach by curbing minority voter registration or by taking an absolutist, unilateral approach to foreign affairs. Unfortunately, many latter-day conservatives still embrace the same profoundly un-American positions in their quest for political dominance.

MSNBC'S Joe Scarborough traveled a particularly low road last week. Standing in for David Gregory on Race for the White House he told Rachel Madow, when she laughed and said he was "so wrong" about something, that ‘she had certainly got the "Hillary Clinton cackle" down.' And these folks wonder why they are often accused of misogynistic attitudes. Considering that regulars Pat Buchanan and Tucker Carlson are never ridiculed when they regularly burst into baffling inane laughter, it was infuriating that Scarborough should demean Madow in such a ham-handed, insulting manner and gather up Hillary Clinton along with her.

Dan Abrams has a segment on his show, Verdict, called "why people hate Washington"; dull-witted loudmouths like Scarborough serve to remind people why they hate the mainstream media.