As O'Brien says in George Orwell's 1984, "Whatever the Party holds to be the truth, is truth. It is impossible to see reality except by looking through the eyes of the Party. That is the fact that you have got to relearn, Winston."

Attacking Fox News as a "plague" of untruths, Margaret Sullivan and her inner party comrades endorse that which they claim to abhor: the constraint of free expression and intellectual freedom. Sullivan needs to read (or re-read) Orwell's 1984.

I note this in light of Sullivan's latest Washington Post column, "It's time — high time — to take Fox News' destructive role in America seriously." Following the Democratic National Committee's decision on Wednesday to bar Fox News from moderating any Democratic Party 2020 presidential debates, Sullivan argues that Fox News is now a "plague" that wages war on "truth, accountability and the rule of law." Those "few journalists" Sullivan respects at Fox News? They "should have long ago left the network in protest."

Before I get into the meat of the argument here, let me first clarify something. Sullivan never again, at least with any credibility, gets to criticize President Trump's "fake news" and "enemy of the people" attacks on the media. Because now Sullivan is a collaborator to those attacks. Attacks by an otherwise respected journalist on other journalists are far more destructive than rants from a president known for them.

Sullivan's argument is no tightly defined lament over Fox News' opinion hosts such as Sean Hannity. It's an attack on reporting. Sullivan proves this herself with her opening line. "Chris Wallace is an exceptional interviewer, and Shepard Smith and Bret Baier are reality-based news anchors. Now that we’ve got that out of the way..."

What? "Now that we've got that out of the way?" I'm sorry, that gets nothing out of the way.

All three of those anchors are exceptional journalists. But Fox News' staple of straight-news journalists does not begin and end with them, not by a long shot. To name just a few, it includes Shannon Bream, Martha MacCallum, Gillian Turner, Ashley Moir, Doug Rohrbeck, Leland Vittert, John Roberts, Megan Myers, Kevin Corke, Christina Robbins, Doug McKelway, Erenia Michell, Lucas Tomlinson, Catherine Herridge, Jennifer Griffin, Lauren Blanchard, Chris Stirewalt, Jezzamine Wolk, Jon Scott, and Greg Palkot — to name just a few.

I'm not just saying this because I go on Fox News more than other networks. I don't know many folks at MSNBC, but I have deep respect for CNN journalists like Pam Brown, Jim Sciutto, Sarah Westwood (my former Washington Examiner colleague), Wolf Blitzer, and Jake Tapper.

What Sullivan forgets is that no network is the sum of just some of its parts. It is the sum of all its parts. The sum of Fox News journalism manifestly demands the objective observer give it far greater respect than Sullivan's scorn.

Regrettably, Sullivan's column does not exist in a vacuum. It reflects a much deeper pool of journalists who despise Fox News. Twitter on Thursday attested to that. Vanity Fair's Joe Hagan noted that his relatives who watch Fox News show that Sullivan's narrative "is true. The misinformation is often breathtaking." The New Yorker's Jane Mayer saluted Sullivan's courage in " powerfully" fighting for the truth. Washington Post's Wesley Lowery, who is supposed to be a straight-news reporter, tweeted his endorsement of Sullivan's narrative. Kim Masters, who, hilariously is on the Peabody award board (so much for objectivity), simply thanked Sullivan "for calling Fox News what it is." Then came Sullivan's retweet of a ringing endorsement from Media Matters for America (forgive me, if your interest is in promoting the idea that your argument is objective rather than opinion, you probably shouldn't be re-tweeting those whose very purpose of employment is to delegitimize news providers that do not conform to leftist interests).

Of course, Sullivan and her cohorts aren't ultimately upset with Fox News per se. They're upset with those who watch Fox and give it success. The proof of that truth is Sullivan's silence on the fact that Fox News' balance of opinion and reporting is no different to that of CNN and MSNBC. Fox has Bret Baier and CNN has Wolf Blitzer; Fox also has Tucker Carlson and CNN also has Don Lemon. Where is Sullivan's shared lament over Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell?

Nowhere. Because her argument isn't about truth. It's about her version of truth. The pure but bitter truth of those who know better.