Absolutely right. But note, that is the natural function of a commentator, and even more so of the author of a book. It is taking a long view, which is precisely what the journalist does NOT do. And it is looking at the contrast between "idealism" and historical reality.IOW, the perspective of journalism is biased against this particular "reality".
When the magazine MediaWatch examined the way Pozner was identified, they found that he was referred to as a "Communist" only once out of 157 references. Most called him simply a "commentator," which was misleading since it implied objectivity. Twenty-one stories described him as a "spokesman," which was a lot closer to the truth. And thirteen described him — utterly falsely — as a "journalist."The First Amendment implicitly assigns to we-the-people individually the role of deciding what speech or printing is true and significant to ourselves. The government, the owner of a newspaper, or indeed Mona Charen have no authority to control who is called a journalist, a commentator, or a spokesman.In the case of broadcasting, of course, the FCC illegitimately assumes that role--by licensing the few while silencing you and me.