I think there's been too much reflection and navel gazing (literally) under my byline as of late, so I'm going to use this post as a catch-all to communicate a few messages.
First: Journolist. I asked if I could join when POLITICO broke the story last year. I found the list to be quite helpful as a way of figuring out what smart liberals were thinking and what they were venting about. No more, no less. I'd love to join a conservative version for the same reason. Virtually everything I contributed to Journolist I wound up using in a blog post, so you're getting the same me here that they did there.
Second: I've had my fill of meta-analysis of how power is represented in the media. I don't speak for my colleagues, and the outrage cycles are distracting. On that jag, I've come up with some stock responses to questions about whether so-and-so covered such-and-such fairly.
1. Answering the question thoughtfully would require more time than I have, or want to devote, to media criticism. Sorry. It's a good question, and good questions are good starts.
2. I support the use of double standards when contextually appropriate. So I tend to ignore questions that start from the premise, "If X was a Republican, you just know the media would ..." No, I don't know that. Or maybe I do know that, and maybe it's appropriate, because the concatenation of judgment and motivation and context can turn something that appears to be similar into something that is quite different.