For a brief moment, the professional press pauses, turns to the electorate, hides a grin and says, 'oops, did we do that?'

Once-Warm Relationship Between Dean and the New Media Sours (NYTimes)

Even some prominent members of the national press corps are questioning whether they built Dr. Dean up too high when he first seemed to catch on with voters in the summer only to knock him too hard when he became seen as the front-runner in the fall.

"We failed twice with Dean," Mark Halperin, political director of ABC News, said of the news media. "Dean was able to rise in standing without being held to a high enough standard of scrutiny for months."

Halperin is also one of the perpetrators of The Note, which spent weeks moaning that Dean wasn't being scrutinized sufficiently by the press. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't ABC's Political Director able to assign stories to reporters and get them published?

The Note's persistent moaning about how the press wasn't doing its job is disingenuous, bordering on rumormongering. If there were such stories to tell, ABC could publish them, yes? Musing publicly about all the bad things that you just can't be bothered to report yourself is journalistic malpractice.

But now, Mr. Halperin added, "he is so overly scrutinized to be beyond fair."

Oh, thanks for your bloody concern, you innocent bystander you.

For all the comments about the 'free ride' Dean got from the media, and how he's been a 'media darling' (which I dispute - most viewed him with surprise and amused disdain until they couldn't ignore him any longer), I don't recall Dean getting these kinds of wet kisses:

• About Kerry: The Advertiser: War hero Democrat recruits old comrade [19jan04]
• About Edwards: On NPR Thursday or Friday, the newsreader said people were responding to -- and I'm quoting exactly as I remember -- Edwards' "positive message and compelling speeches". Wow, that sure beats 'angry'.

I guess the silver lining is that any Democrats are getting favorable press.