The mainstream media are trying to make sense of the brave new world of the internet and bloggers. Old media types are worrying a lot these days about their waning influence, credibility and market share. They’re searching for a magic bullet that will make things “normal” again, meaning give them back their prestige, influence and monopoly.

The New York Times’ Nicholas Kristof, in an April 12 column, does some soul-searching and concludes: “I don’t see any easy solutions, but print, radio and television all need to take much bolder steps to reconnect with the public.”

Kristof admits media blame in one sentence and casts it off in the next.

“We protest that we’ve been made scapegoats by partisan demagogues, particularly on the right, and I think that’s true,” Kristof says. “But distrust for the news media, even if it’s unfair, is the new reality — and we will have to work much, much harder to win back our credibility with the public.” (Emphasis added.)

He writes further:

“If one word can capture the public attitude toward American journalists, I’m afraid it’s ‘arrogant.’ Not surprisingly, I think that charge is grossly unfair,” he says. (Emphasis added.) “But it’s imperative that we respond to that charge — not by dismissing it, but by working far more diligently to reconnect with the public.”

I heard a similarly schizophrenic prescription a few months ago when I was a guest at a training session held by one of the nation’s largest newspaper chains. The editor of a major metro daily was the host of the session, and his diagnosis was similar to Kristof’s: The credibility of the media is in a dumper and it must “reconnect” with people to get it back, and, oh, by the way, it’s not our fault.

This editor diagnosed the symptoms accurately: lost circulation, lost credibility, lost relevance. But the reason is not through any fault of the mainstream media itself, he said, but, instead, due to Fox News, cable opinion shows and right-wing bloggers that have conditioned the American public to accept only news with which they agree.

So, if it weren’t for the ignorant, easily led, mind-numbed American public duped by talk radio, the problem would not exist, was his view (though not stated in such blunt terms).

So, how does a newspaper or other medium “reconnect” with a public that it feels are ignorant sheep being shepherded by right-wing bloggers and Fox News? How do they go about creating a bond with such people? Condescension seems to be the plan of the moment.

Kristof urges that newspapers “hire more red state evangelicals,” and he allows that “gun owners have a point when they complain that gun issues often seem to be covered by people who don’t know a 12-gauge from an AR-15.” I suppose it is now safe for young journalism graduates to begin touting their NRA and Young Life memberships on their resumes.

The big-city editor at the training session made “reconnecting” with real people sound a lot like scientists living among chimpanzees in hopes of understanding their social organization. These people love Wal-Mart, NASCAR and Jesus, he told his reporters and editors, so get out there and try to understand them.

But to what end? This was a mixed message to the assembled journalists, and it didn’t seem to go over well. Why should we cater to these mouth-breathers if it’s their problem in the first place? Let them become enlightened and see the world correctly. Don’t make us do all the work.

This begs the question: If the media feel it’s the ill-informed American public that is the problem, and that the press’s decline in polls is only due to “misperceptions,” will they really try to understand their readers and viewers and produce a product that reflects their Red State concerns?

Judging from the rolling eyes and whispered remarks at the training session, it is doubtful. These journalists, unlike scientists stalking apes, seemed unwilling to withhold their preconceptions and value judgments while stalking the wild Red Stater.

Kristof’s column gives a hint as to where this may be heading:

“It would help if news organizations engaged in more outreach to explain themselves, with anchors or editors walking readers through such minefields as why we choose to call someone a ‘terrorist,’ or how we wield terms like ‘pro-life’ or ‘pro-choice,’” he wrote.

There are already countless public editors and ombudsmen trying to do that now. How many more will it take? The media are calling for a sell job when what is needed is reform.

Jon Ham is vice president of the John Locke Foundation and publisher of Carolina Journal.