Headlines like the ones below tell the story:

“Democrats point fingers after stunning loss”

“GOP Win in Mass. Puts Dems on Offensive – Scott Brown’s Surprise Senate Victory Has Democrats Scrambling to Regain Footing”

“GOP Senate Victory Stuns Democrats”

“In Stunning Upset, GOP’s Brown Wins Mass. Seat“

deweydefeatstruman

Etc.

In one sense, yes, Scott Brown’s victory over Martha Coakley was stunning: In the bluest of blue states in the bluest region of the nation, voters rejected the Democrats’ — and Obama’s — agenda, sending a Republican to the Senate whom they hope will help stem the waves of left-wing socialism upon which our president, accompanied by a majority in Congress, has been bodysurfing since he came to office, despite campaigning as a moderate who would govern from the center.

On the other hand, if you’ve been paying attention to the growing tide of anger and resentment against Washington elitists who have lost touch with their constituents, then Brown’s win was not stunning, but a logical outcome. Unfortunately, many of those who task themselves with bringing us the news each and every day seem to be as out of touch with their audience as the Washington elites they cover.

They continue to call citizens who rallied round the Tea Party movement “tea baggers,” a derogatory term in more ways than one. And other than laughing and sneering at “tea baggers,” major news outlets largely ignored the tea party movement.

Former Clinton advisor David Gergen, who went on to a career as a political analyst on television, asked Brown during his debate with Coakley if he was “willing … to say, I’m going to be the person, I’m going to sit in Teddy Kennedy’s seat and I’m going to be the person who’s going to block it for another 15 years?” Brown (now famously) answered that it wasn’t the Kennedy seat, but “the people’s seat.”

And, in the final days leading up to the special Massachusetts election, MSNBC’s David Shuster wondered this:



Obviously these folks don’t pay attention to facts like “conservatives are the single-largest ideological group.” Considering they’re supposed to be in the business of reporting facts, that’s a bit disturbing.

I don’t agree with Mika Brzezinski about much, but I do endorse her refreshing suggestion that journalists “need to stop pretending about who we are and every journalist should tell us what their political affiliation is, who they voted for,  and we go from there.” It’s impossible to be completely objective, especially when a majority of your colleagues think the same way you do. Stop treating your customers, the American people, like children who cannot think for themselves.

But don’t count on it happening anytime soon. Roger Ebert – granted, a movie critic and not a “serious journalist,” but who enjoys using his position to comment on the issues of the day – Tweeted Massachusetts to Teddy: “F–k You.” And Keith Olbermann who, thankfully, is really in a class all by himself, inferred that the Brown win (or even a loss but a close race) meant that Massachusetts is suddenly full of racists. And in the same conversation, Howard Fineman said that things like Brown’s pickup truck are some sort of racist code.

These people just don’t get it. Which is why they will continue to be marginalized in the days, weeks and months to come.