Here in salon.com-land, you're preaching to the choir/reverberating in the echo chamber/writing in the liberal blogosphere.

What's the basis for your claims about who reads and otherwise ends up exposed to what is written here?"

As to the first part ("who reads"), I think you only have to look at the responses in this column to know your audience. Anyone who doesn't like facts or perspective goes off to the right-wing blogosphere. This is not a new phenomena, and I could dig out other articles on various "echo chamber" effects but I suspect you'd be better at finding examples.

As to the second part ("and otherwise ends up exposed to what's written here"), well, I reference you a lot and try to follow my own advice when spreading the word. I quote your pithy remarks and link to your primary sources.

Yeah - if there's one thing we've had too much of, it's outrage over what was done. Think how much better things would be if we had less.

Please don't misunderstand me: Your (and my) outrage is warranted. I agree that if more had expressed outrage when the conservatives fully took over the media circa 1993, things would be better. But at some point you have to decide whether you're Jim Lehrer or Keith Olbermann. You keep repeating

One of the central facts that we, collectively, have not yet come to terms with is how extremist and radical were the people running the country for the last eight years.

Yet those who have spent the last several years pointing out how unprecedentedly extremist and radical was our political leadership

If this isn't the unadorned face of warped authoritarian extremism, what is?

Yet we never really came to terms -- and still haven't -- with just how extremist and radical and tyrannical this all was.

and you are extremely correct. But your rhetorical point gets lost. A little hyperbole goes a long way. Those of us who agree with you don't need you to repeat the thesis, we need examples to link to and make convincing arguments. Those who disagree with you, if they read you at all, will just roll their eyes at the first time you say something that doesn't fit into their worldview.

Again, I think you're doing a terrific job and put your finger on many issues ignored or slighted by the mainstream media. But you need an editor; most bloggers do (including me). And yes, I'm building the www.rhetoric.com web site with scads of journalistic advice from my mother's columns which will expand to longer essays, so I have an interest in the art of persuasion.

Congratulations on being named recipient of the Izzy Stone award! You and Amy well deserve this, and more.

As to anonymous sources: When I was studying journalism, they weren't exactly a no-no, but you didn't use them as the basis for your entire story. They were like Deep Throat, pointing you to an angle you hadn't thought of or leading you to a primary source you might not have interviewed. A source that couldn't be verified was rarely used as more than support or to provide perspective.

The Bush administration relied on secrecy and lies. I'm hoping that the Obama administration will at least tell the truth, even if highly placed sources aren't on the record. So far, a few weeks into the new administration, they're headed in the right direction but haven't completely purged the nasty Bush habits. I wonder how much of that is reporters insisting, "If you tell me something juicy I won't use your name."

It's not that the conservative news media is irresponsibly bad, it's that the conservative news media is criminally bad. What CNBC let corporate shills get away with as they actively participated in a lie, Fox and CNN let right-wing ideologues get away with as they actively participated in a lie. Compare the run-up to Bear-Stearns' collapse and the run-up to the Iraq War.

The right keeps talking about "personal responsibility". Let's see some.

John Stewart goes after the people who aided and abetted the financial crisis. Some of these criminals might actually go to jail with a real journalist to shed the light of day. Suddenly people have hope, and the stock market has its first winning week since shortly after Obama was elected.

Coincidence?

Probably. But still. Salon.com should take note.

(Shout out to Glenn Greenwald, who also works in the trenches.)

Thanks for the report. I hadn't realized Portugal had gone all out, decriminalizing the use (but not trafficking) of the hard stuff as well as the soft. While eight years isn't a full test, and what happens in Portugal may not translate to the US, their experiment contains lessons we can learn from.

One of the lessons is that treatment works better than punishment. Helping people take personal responsibility for their lives actually deals with drug usage more effectively than a zero tolerance ideology. As usual, the far right invented a culture war and finds itself on the wrong side of it.

I suspect the interplay between you and Prof. Reuter will be well worth reading.

When the Reagan/Buah/Bush administrations did such dissemination, at least they closed ranks and only pointed fingers at Democrats or disloyal Republicans. I'm disappointed that the Obama administration's "change" is to rip apart the Democratic party.

Oh, and I'm not happy with the finger pointing either. Man up, guys. Show you're better than the Bushies and deal with the situation and don't worry so much about the spin.