It’s old news to say that media insiders prefer gossip to substance when it comes to "covering" policy debates.  However, I still find it interesting to observe when this reality is made crystal clear.  Mika Brzezinski pulled the curtain aside today on Morning Joe when she asserted that "whether or not" additional stimulus is needed to help the economy, she doesn’t see how there’s any "appetite" for more stimulus given the current "narrative".

That’s classic substance free "analysis", heavy on buzz words and insider-y jargon.  Brzezinski concedes that it doesn’t matter whether more stimulus would actually make sense — the question she’s concerned with is whether the "narrative" (which she and the rest of the gang on Morning Joe help set every day by repeatedly criticizing the idea of government stimulus and harping on concerns about the deficit–what Paul Krugman calls the "phantom menace") will make any room for rational decisionmaking.

This is a neat trick.  The Morning Joe crew helps create a "narrative" that deficits are more of a concern than unemployment, and Mika Brzezinski then cites that narrative, which she and her colleagues have helped create, as a reason why additional stimulus is off the table–whether (as she expressly concedes) it would help the economy or not.

Brzezinski is far from the only one to favor style over substance.  David Broder recently claimed that the "urgent necessity" for President Obama when it comes to Afghanistan "is to make a decision–whether or not it is right."

This ought to be stunning.  Media insiders are telling us that being right doesn’t matter when it comes to Afghanistan or the economy.  I guess that shouldn’t be all that surprising given what we have seen in recent years from pundits and media oracles, but I suppose I still have the ability to be amazed when media insiders admit that facts and substance don’t really matter.  Perhaps the first thing to do is to thank Brzezinski and Broder for their candor.  The next thing to do is to find a way to make their baseless observations and crafting of the "narrative" irrelevant to rational policy debate.