Jonah Goldberg counters the many voices who say truth, thoughtful writing and good editing are getting lost in modern journalism.  These voices rise up in the wake of Journolist, sloppy race stories and Wikileaks.  Goldberg tries to provide balance and longer-term perspective to the debate, and somehow Cronkite makes a crosshair-cameo.

For some reason, whenever two sides are both essentially right, I always enjoy the second argument more.  Like a good return to a good tennis shot, it contains elements of good defense and good offense.

My thought is that you have to appreciate the difference between the essence or nature of something and its situational and accidental features.  We can’t judge the potential of journalism from the current reality of journalism, because the current reality of journalism contains both inevitable features and features that could have turned out differently.  That’s not the case with potential.  That was somewhere in Goldberg’s point.