It (Charlie Savage's narrative on Bush/Cheney/Addington's accruing of presidential power) might have been useful during the past five or six years, if it could have been implemented sooner, but I don't think it really sings right now.

We're ginning/gunning up for a presidential election, and wouldn't it make more sense to re-member how that process failed us the last two times? How the media completely fell down on the job? For example, that incident (that received almost no reporting) when the traveling press corpse hooted and hollered during Gore's speech/debate (I don't remember which) at Dartmouth, but gave Bush (unbelievably!) all the respect due an incumbent, if not a candidate. There are lots of bloggers who have documented the free pass received by Bush vs. the (not only unreasonable grilling, but) made-up lies that Gore was subjected to. And how they swallowed, hook-line-and-sinker, the swiftboat lies about Kerry.

For my money, the narrative, if only there was a way to get it out there, should be what a lousy, stinking job the press did then... and why should we trust them to do a better job now, or even as good a job? [Good Grief! We don't even have Molly Ivins, among others, this time around.]

Blogs and YouTube, and maybe HuffPo's "Off the Bus" may be ways to write a new narrative.

I'd love to see a video virally circulating the internets with a bunch of voters (all ages) sitting around reading news stories from 2000 and 2004, slapping their knees, and hooting and hollering at the absurdity of the (actual) reporting just as those reporters did to (their invented) Gore. And that would be just the beginning. MoDo would be high on my list, too.

[Pedinska, bystander, ondelette et al, it could be a way of using some pieces of that lexicon we came up with on that earlier thread.]

at the White House Correspondents' Dinner was one of the bravest-- and yet absolutely funniest-- things I had ever seen.

That he could keep from breaking character with his "hero" GWB but a few feet away, was to me, a real demonstration of intestinal fortitude. And it's still one of the best and funniest pieces of writing I've ever heard delivered.

I doubt I'll ever see its like again in my life time. I did a post about that time about "real" men, journalists with guts, who were really HOT! Granted, it was a short list, but I was surprised at how long it was. Colbert topped the list.

So, now (these days) I bring myself 'round here, instead, and read Glenn's latest post, and read words of wisdom and insight from the rest of you folks.

...and I don't know, but I think he's treading on thin ice here, to satirize with "facts" that could, given the increasingly deviant revelations from the GOP/RWAs, be so darn close to the Truth.

But, I guess if it worked for Colbert... then anything goes.

Good job!

I was thinking of that post, too, RMP. In fact, I quoted a bit of it earlier on, and noted, once more, how he keeps us all grounded. An attribute that I think is often undervalued in online communities where there is so much scintillating discussion of theories and such. A bit of salt is needed.

Pedinska, instead of blueberry whine, how about some blueberry whynot? Or whyknot, if you prefer even more bemusement.

And, Brian Hayward, you are a mensch.

But nothing will change.

What he's doing is working so well, why should it change?

Being pummeled insistently and regularly may not have the desired impact at Time, but I suspect it will have some effect on Klein's health, specifically, his stomach. No one can withstand such a constant assault, not just from Glenn, but from Klein's own readers/commenters on his blog, without it having some kind of a queasy effect. Waking up with that every day can pretty unpleasant.

Eventually, if he consults a doctor, he might have to answer some questions about stress, and then he might even have to reflect...

A bit organic, I know, when we really want a more directly measurable change, but I do agree that most people will not make changes without some very compelling reason or motivation, and health is often the only one that finally gets a person's attention.

The best part of this post is that Glenn was able to connect the dots (in a manner of speaking) between those on very different rungs of the SES food chain ladder. [Sorry, but I needed both metaphors.]

To decide to contrast the differences in pride of profession between professional legal stenographers and less professional stenographers who pose as political analysts was brilliant. I suspect his example will become a meme echoing through cyber-space.

And, just so we don't forget... we should be more careful in our use of the term "stenographer," so that we don't, as Glenn suggests, inadvertently malign any of the professional legal ones.

joe kLIEn

I don't really know; nor do I have either the Time or the inkLIEnation to correctly assess the situation. Nor am I an expert of any kind.

Thanks for noticing!

The real question is "could" they? (Assuming that they wanted to?)

Another poster (previous thread?) commented on how hard it is already to find journalism students who want to do actual reporting. And not just opining.

And there also seems to be a parallel with the DOJ politicization. Filling all of those empty slots won't be easy either. The candidates one would want probably won't want the positions. Under the current circumstances.