CNBC, I think . ..It's an article of the journalists' religion that the power of PR overwhelms the memory of the sheeple. They concentrate on the present moment, and not on the past--because the past has an untidy habit of turning out more positive than the extreme negativity of journalism would ever suggest.
A journalist just won't debate the issue with you, they'll change the subject to whatever the latest "breaking news" is. The day after the "Gore Wins Florida" fiasco journalism was abuzz about--the fact that it was Bush's cousin who first--and correctly--called "Bush Wins Florida."
Their fascination with that also betrayed, as Ann Coulter pointed out in Slander, the fact that their fast calls of Gore wins and slow calls of Bush wins had been a conscious strategy to give Gore a PR boost where the polls were still open. The journalists were accusing the Bush cousin of exactly what they in fact had done, were in fact still doing.
The rules of commercial journalistic success creates the PR tailwind which liberal politicians exploit (IOW, both are demagogic). Liberalism simply follows journalism, adopting journalism as a mainstay element of the Democratic Party. The reason for the Democratic Party's refusal to let go of the "Gore Beats Bush" scenarios is blindingly obvious.
It is journalism which still can't believe that they got Gore within 500 votes of victory in Florida, but couldn't put him over the top!
That would seem to be the next step down. Everytime I hear the name Al Jazeera, my mind automatically changes it to Al Zajeera. Like Christiane, jeering at America seems to be its strong suit.