The more I think about it, the more convinced I become that I should get some sort of medal for reading all the left-wing blogs. At the very least, the Hoover Institute or the Heritage Foundation should reward me with an honorary fellowship.

Today, Glenn Greenwald offers this doozy of a whopper of an opinion:

Both in theory and in practice, The Washington Post -- as the most influential newspaper in the nation's capital -- has been a vitally important check on the power of the federal government. Its greatest successes and contributions have been when it has acted as an adversarial force balancing abuses of power by national political officials. That is the core function which newspapers are intended to perform, and the Post has a long and illustrious history of performing it as well as any other newspaper.

(Emphasis in original, if you can believe it.)

Admittedly, it is only in my wildest dreams that I can think with the subtle brilliance of the Great Greenwald. And yet, much to my trepidation since doing so might trigger a struggle with the mighty Greenwald intellect, I must venture a contrary opinion. I have always thought that the “core function that newspapers are intended to perform” was to report the freakin’ news! As a committed capitalist, I have further expanded their “core function” to making a profit while reporting said news. Greenwald, on the other hand, thinks the core function of a newspaper should be to pursue some agenda, presumably one that matches his agenda. I also can’t help but take notice of the passive voice in the Greenwald formulation, “The core function that newspapers are intended to perform.” Who exactly is doing the “intending” here? One can only hope that these unidentified parties are as pure of heart and sound of mind as Glenn Greenwald.

IN THINKING ABOUT The Great Greenwald Thesis (as history will no doubt come to know it), I’ve wondered if I would prefer newspapers that considered it their core mission to be sticking their collective thumb into the collective eye of domestic political forces that I don’t like. And you know what? I’d take a pass.

Don’t get me wrong. I love journalistic endeavors with an agenda like The Weekly Standard and National Review. I’m even thrilled to contribute to them when they give me the opportunity to do so. But they’re not newspapers. They don’t pretend to gather “all the news that’s fit to print.” They print analyses of whatever strikes their fancies in any given issue.

But for news, I just want the raw data. Frankly, I wouldn’t want a newspaper to consider its core mission over the next two years to serve as an adversarial force to Nancy Pelosi. And I certainly wouldn’t buy such a rag.

Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com