Austin Bay writes:

In the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina I recorded a commentary for NPR’s Morning Edition that assessed the National Guard’s rapid response effort. I contended only the US could respond as quickly and successfully to the destruction of a major city. That commentary drew loads of flak.

However, according to Lou Dolinar at realclearpolitics.com the Katrina after-action reports demonstrate that the national media’s reporting (particularly television reporting) was impressionistic falderol, missing the big story of Katrina and missing the indicative details. National Guard units (from Louisiana and other states) and out of state responders got to critical areas in south Louisiana quickly and in force. They focused on search and rescue first– which is what they are supposed to do.

Vanity Fair contributor Marie Brenner was recently quoted as saying:

[B]loggers often put forth the news with a partisan slant, she said, and "more and more Americans now receive their news through these partisan channels."

Update: Jeff Jarvis has some prescient related thoughts:

At every journalism seminar like this, someone asks whether readers will trust a reporter covering an election after knowing how the reporter votes or what party she belongs to. I argue that the readers wonder and speculate about this anyway and so once it is out in the open, then the discussion can turn to the reporting: ‘Having said that I’m a liberal, now you can judge my work on its completeness, fairness, and accuracy.’ There is no agenda worse than a hidden agenda.