There is an interesting piece in today's Wall Street Journal that provides insight--both current and historical--into the polarization of the partisan press. Alan Murray (whom I saw while working in DC this summer) pens an article entitled "As in Olden Days, U.S. Media Reflect The Partisan Divide" which I recommend you read if you're interested in news bias.

Murray writes that increasingly news outlets (Fox News a prime example) have decided to create a narrow but deep group of viewers by playing to the partisan leanings of certain segments of Americans. Though people complain about this as something new, Murray believes otherwise:

We've been here before. Author Ron Chernow's fascinating biography of Alexander Hamilton details how Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson carried out their vicious feuds in proxy newspapers, under assumed names such as Publius and Civis. New research by economic historian Claudia Goldin shows that a partisan media was in full flower when the Credit Mobilier scandal burst open in early 1870s. At the time, Ms. Goldin says, only 11% of major newspapers even claimed to be independent.

He writes further of the dilemma facing the press, in a very fair way (at least in my opinion).

Clearly, mainstream newspapers and networks suffered over the years, if not from intentional bias, at least from a process of self-selection that leads liberal-leaning Americans to choose journalism school over, say, business school. Just as clearly, the rise of Fox News, which sought out right-leaning anchors to push a conservative line, hasn't just been an antidote to this leftward tilt of the mainstream press, but a catalyst for the new era of partisan journalism [emphasis added].

Murray concludes by citing surveys showing Americans don't actually want a partisan press system.

For those of us who still value the independence and nonpartisanship of Progressive Era journalism, there is some reason for hope. Andrew Kohut, director of The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, says most Americans still say they want objective journalism, not partisan spin.

If Mr. Kohut is right, the current media conflict could lead to a better, more balanced, but still fiercely independent press. A decision by Dan Rather and CBS to launch a thorough investigation into the Bush documents would be a step in the right direction.

I highly respect Andrew Kohut and the Pew Research Center, but I'm skeptical that Americans' desires for a more independent media correspond to their actions. More and more people are turning to sources that do not offend their partisan sensibilities, regardless of whether the facts are on their side or not. They will cry bias at any moment at which not everything is going their way (much like fans at a basketball heckling the referee). I think that's why so many people are joining the blogosphere, to be frank.

I don't necessarily think it's a terrible thing to have partisan-centered media, as long as people realize that they're going to be getting a Republican slant when they watch Fox News and their going to get a Democratic slant when they read DailyKos or Eschaton. In fact, I think the past few years have shown that the blogosphere has in fact played an essential role in bringing up a number of issues and stories previously untouched by the mainstream media (the Trent Lott story comes to mind).

It will be interesting to see the role bloggers play in the future--whether the Right's top-down approach prevails or if the left's vast myriad of editorialists (from me to Josh Marshall) succeeds. Either way, I think the blogosphere will continue to alter the way people receive information in the coming years and in doing so it will change things for the better.