At This Point, Journalists Are Literally Just Going Through The Motions Of Covering Up Their Bias

One of the laziest ways for journalists to insert their opinions into stories is to pretend that they're quoting other sources. The LA Times's Eric Werner did this a couple days ago with some Bush blundered badly snark, and there was so much of it going around during the Beit Hanun feeding frenzy that we literally did a case study of the tactic. Mickey Kaus recently humiliated any journalist who would think they're being subtle on this question:

Hey, I've got analysts too! Many analysts say that "analysts say" pieces are the laziest form of journalism, because the "analysts" usually just happen to say what the journalist himself would say if the rules of journalism permitted him to do so without putting the opinions in the mouths of "analysts." Meanwhile, analysts who might say something else get ignored. But at least "analysts say" pieces, analysts say, should quote some analysts saying the things the analysts are supposed to have said. Otherwise the impression is overhwelming that the journalist who wrote the thing is just spouting off. According to observers.

Which makes this morning's WaPo drop-in about growing momentum for negotiating with Syria all the more pathetic:

Another point of debate in the policy review is how far to broaden a new U.S. strategy to bring in regional players to help stabilize Iraq. The White House and the State Department are still wedded to the isolation of Iran and Syria, despite the growing momentum behind the idea of regional outreach, according to sources familiar with the discussions. The idea has also been part of the discussions of the Iraq Study Group.

Actually, there is significantly weakening momentum behind the idea of outreach towards Syria, as this week even saw France rejecting the idea that talking to Syria can be productive. Close readers will note that "weakening momentum" is actually the opposite of the "growing momentum" that the Bush administration is supposedly on the wrong side of.

If "analysts say" journalism is the laziest form of journalism, exactly what kind of laziness is being displayed by flatly false assertions that aren't even attributed to analysts? If only reality actually was what journalists wish reality was, their jobs would be a whole lots easier. Or at least more intellectually honest.

UPDATE: To clarify, we know that the Baker Commission recommended high level talks with Damascus. But that's the point - just about everyone else on the planet has been running away from that suggestion - except the WaPo, which insists that in addition to the Baker Commission there has "also" been "growing momentum behind the idea of regional outreach". Which seems not true.

Previously: NYT: Just Because You Were Forced at Gunpoint to Convert To Islam Doesn't Mean You Were Harmed In Any Way, With This Simple Formula, You Too Can Produce Solid Anti-Israel Journalism, European Media Bias - Really?