So Olbermann wasn't a party to the deal, but the deal sure was a party to Olbermann. Regardless of where Olberman's head is, or where his heart is, you can't put a broadcaster or writer or reporter in that position (between rock@hard-place) and not have it put a dent in him--if he decides to stay, that is.

I wonder if he considered chucking the gig, rather than accepting the muzzle.

That's exactly what Olbermann hasn't done. His comments about having no idea what Wolffe does for a living were embarrassing and his defense of his own part in the "agreement" transparent.

It ain't transparent to me. And if it were blatantly and obviously transparent to GG, his post would have been out long ago. I assume he's out running the traps as we speak.

Meanwhile, to change the subject, my congressman Doggett got bushwacked by a small but vocal group of wingnuts at a healthcare forum here in Doggett's home district. Famously on msnbc, fdl, youtube and the like. I don't know where these people came from, but it was personally embarrasing to see Doggett get mobbed like that in his own house. Need to do something about that...

Glenn -- Please Tread Lightly Here

No, not lightly. Carefully, yes--but Greenwald is typically careful.

My take on this is that this interchange is good for KO, and it is good for GG. Rather than looking at this as a tabloid spectacle, view it as appropriate criticism of a cable news show and network by a media critic who attacks bad media practices regardless of political pursuasion. It is important for Greenwald to attack such practices wherever he sees them.

I have no doubt that there will be a response from GG today, perhaps other reporters as well, and I feel KO had better speak with perfect honesty. His personal credibility is at stake, imo. The credibility of his network, msnbc, is already suspect, based on earlier behavior.

I just checked my copy of the Constitution

And I didn't find the part that says "Newspaper Owners May not give Instructions to their Employees.."

There is nothing in the Constitution about tapping phones. The phrase "tapping phones" absolutely does not appear.

So by your logic, tapping phones isn't covered by the constitution and must be OK.

So you're suggestion is to just sit back and do nothing?

Not only that, but television 'news' people have repeatedly said that ownership plays no role in their journalism. They say this about as frequently as politicians state that big donors have no increased access to lawmakers.

It is important to counter that argument, even though the most brilliant and worldy those among us, like the incredible Natty-J, already have everything figured out.

Many are afraid that their journalistic reputations will suffer by being so publicly humiliated by GE...

Damage done, I'm afraid, Quod erat demonstrandum. There's now enough of a pattern of interference (a pattern beginning at least as early as Donahue's muzzling early in the Iraq invasion) that the case against NBC specifically and corporate media generally has been demonstrated.

Thanks for articulating it so well.

That is a beautiful thing.

But first, Bradley, a US military attorney for 20 years, will reveal that Mohamed, 31, is dying in his Guantánamo cell and that conditions inside the Cuban prison camp have deteriorated badly since Barack Obama took office. Fifty of its 260 detainees are on hunger strike and, say witnesses, are being strapped to chairs and force-fed, with those who resist being beaten. At least 20 are described as being so unhealthy they are on a "critical list", according to Bradley.

Mohamed, who is suffering dramatic weight loss after a month-long hunger strike, has told Bradley, 45, that he is "very scared" of being attacked by guards, after witnessing a savage beating for a detainee who refused to be strapped down and have a feeding tube forced into his mouth. It is the first account Bradley has personally received of a detainee being physically assaulted in Guantánamo.

Bradley recently met Mohamed in Camp Delta's sparse visiting room and was shaken by his account of the state of affairs inside the notorious prison.

She said: "At least 50 people are on hunger strike, with 20 on the critical list, according to Binyam. The JTF [the Joint Task Force running Guantánamo] are not commenting because they do not want the public to know what is going on.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/08/binyam-mohamed-torture-guantanamo-bay

see also:

FREED GUANTANAMO DETAINEES CLAIM ABUSE CONTINUES UNDER OBAMA

21 July 2009

http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/?p=35790

I don't see how a discussion of Obama's role in US torture cannot include the above.

Is it too "unserious" to go there?

Feeling much the same way, I can't argue with you. I'm just saying that she would not have been a Bush, or a GOP nominee had any of the GOP candidates won. And had Obama raised Hugo Black from the dead and placed him on the court, that wouldn't have changed the balance of the court either--that is just an artifact of the current numbers, rather than anything about Sotomayor individually.

There hasn't been one meaningful departure from the prior administrations policies that wasn't simply rhetoric unsupported by an actual "real world factual change of behavior by the American government".

don't downplay Sotomayor. She represents a pretty strong divergence.

I'm truly sorry to read your post. For what it's worth, I heard Paul Krugman on Fresh Aire yesterday saying, in essence, that he will now take just about anything in terms of a health-care bill. He views this as a long, gradual process and feels it is important to just get started. That kind of talk is not comforting.