...which is that the corporations that run the networks have agendas that REQUIRE the distortion of news and analysis.

there may have been a sainted time when the newsroom was insulated from such pressures. but that time is long gone. let's not forget jack welch in 2000 called nbc news to tell them to call the election for bush. these days, no call to the newsroom is necessary: the news personnel themselves consider any audiences that DON'T understand what the marching orders are to be saps.

that is, the personnel don't need any external pressures; they internalize the value system as their own.

and let's not forget how the bush administration showed them how to do it (if they didn't already know): with the illegal warrantless wiretaps, the bushites didn't deny it, they just kept on doing what they wanted, knowing that no one in a position to call them on it would do anything. and they were right: congress and the courts and the msm all gave them a pretty free pass.

nbc's behavior follows that m.o. -- not unlike union-busting corporations taking their cue from reagan's breaking of patco.

...which is to distill the essence of what the washington villagers' perspective is; we outside their circle might call it skewed rationalization after the fact.

thanks for the jackson and brandeis quotes. i find it unsurprising that there is no adequate rejoinder to the core truths contained in them except, as some commenters here would have it, The Fawn Hall Exception: "sometime we must go above the law."

every time "we" do, it works out somewhat less than expected or hoped for, doesn't it?

the strength of the law is its application; when it is set aside from use because of the high rank of the offender, the corruption stains us all, and weakens all our institutions. those who fail to recognize that really don't have a good understanding of this country's precepts.

...typically my reflex might be to not appear on such a right-wing outlet, if only because they demonstrate an almost criminal impulse to distort the points a progressive interviewee might try to make. and yet, as you say, it's important to use the opportunity to try to reach a new audience, else we all just wind up talking to ourselves.

the single greatest point you made is the primacy of diplomacy -- that war should always be the LAST option, something no bushite would admit. (as for proportionate response, that's another topic the hawks have trouble differentiating.) the second greatest point was to slap down references to hitler -- the right no longer recognizes how it has diminished the standing of the holocaust, by trotting out adolph every time they want to justify an action they endorse.

really well done, glenn. watch out, you may be invited back. which is, of course, the point.

...and we see that we're going to be extremely disappointed, not to say outraged, by what obama will and, more to the point, won't do.

he was always a rorschach candidate, and never very progressive. the fisa vote told you all you needed to know during the campaign. and now, we are going to see him dismiss the very issues that drew him support.

remember when we took such heart from his statement that if crimes were committed they ought to be investigated? don't bet the rent on that one. or on closing guantanamo. or on green energy (unless you include his support of nuclear and clean-coal technologies). and now we see that he is going along with whatever the conventional washington belief system is on the middle east.

lower your expectations while there's still time.

...because as glenn notes, you think the other side is going to let up? no chance of that: it knows this is the time to make the greatest impact on an incoming administration.

draw the lesson from clinton (no progressive, he); his first term was defined by his early missteps, which all came from trying to placate and coopt a conservative cadre that was relentless about its interests.

progressives need to make clear over and over and over again that they are not about to let this white house lose its way from the first principles that elected it. and guess what? when the obamanauts see that they can make headway on that agenda without the sky falling, they will gain confidence in continuing to do what they said they would.

progressives have to remain tough, and hard, and loud. because the other side will not rest. ever.

...let's call it hat. this time his warmongering is a little more naked. what's unfathomable is why he is so highly regarded (THREE pulitzers, including one for commentary, as he'll remind you).

that's why he's dangerous. otherwise reasonable people think he's knowledgeable, when really he's just reflexively, aggressively stupid, and championing the philosophy of the bully. and to think there was a time when he acknowledged that the israeli settlement movement was populated by loons.

one nit, glenn: please don't conflate columns and essays on the oped pages, by definition opinion, with journalism, the assembling and reporting of fact. they're two different beasts, though foxians and their ilk relentlessly try to blur the borders.

then we'll have to disagree. not so big a deal. but whether or not the conflation is typical -- and that's not the case within the industry -- it's still not accurate.

if you recognize how the deterioration of news-gathering and reporting has been hastened by the willful disregard between those functions and editorializing, you'll understand that it's a distinction worth defending.

well, when you put it that way....

seriously, thanks for the clarification. you're right in that this is a dispute of terms. i'm not willing to concede the point entirely, but your take is astute and certainly a clear-eyed assessment of how the business is run these days.