A couple of things jumped out at me recently as I've been reading some of how the purportedly mainstream media is covering the Journo-List and Tea Party "Racism" issues.

First, the Journo-List, from Politico's Roger Simon:

Recently, however, the conservative website The Daily Caller, run by Tucker Carlson, got hold of many Journolist e-mails and printed the most provocative, which to some gave every appearance of a left-wing conspiracy to slant news coverage in favor of Barack Obama. Journolist posts by Washington Post blogger Dave Weigel, who was helping cover the conservative movement, that were critical of conservative icons, including Matt Drudge, prompted Weigel to resign.

What were the "critical" comments? A wish that Drudge would set himself on fire and that Rush Limbaugh's heart would fail. Are those really high-minded, critical comments? They certainly aren't substantive criticism. If they had been substantive, then Weigel would still be writing for the Post. Conservatives criticize each other all the time, and that's never been a firing offense.

I hate to accuse Simon of trying to smooth over inconvenient facts [no, you don't -- ed.], but would Simon have referred to former Sen. George Allen's "macaca" moment as a merely a criticism of overzealous campaign workers? Describing Weigel's hateful personal attacks as mere "criticism" is dishonest. Simon knows better.

Second, and perhaps more destructive is this non-correction correction from The New York Times:

The Political Times column last Sunday, about a generational divide over racial attitudes, erroneously linked one example of a racially charged statement to the Tea Party movement. While Tea Party supporters have been connected to a number of such statements, there is no evidence that epithets reportedly directed in March at Representative John Lewis, Democrat of Georgia, outside the Capitol, came from Tea Party members.

This is a vicious sleight of hand. There's no evidence that racial epithets were yelled at Rep. John Lewis outside the Capitol by anyone. The Times falsely levels a smear at the Tea Party in the story, and then changes it to a smear by insinuation in the "correction."

Journalism. Wound. Self-inflicted.