The point of all of this media criticism -- from the more systemic efforts to target editors, publishers and their business interests to shaming individual reporters, editors and pieces -- is to expose what they really are, to discredit their product so that they are either forced to change it or lose influence if they don't. - GlennGreenwald

Leaving aside how difficult it is to gauge how much "influence" the print media has anymore, the possible consequences of their collective negligence grow ever greater over time.

How many here knew that a number of FAA whistleblowers testified before Congress a couple days ago? Can anyone name which carrier was central to their revelations, or how of its jets were found flying with cracks in the fuselage? If you can, I'll wager it wasn't through any print sources.

I may well take a tragedy on the level of 9/11, albeit one that could have actually been prevented, to shake the media tree sufficiently to see real improvement.

On the other hand, such an event if combined with sufficient public disgust - especially if expressed widely and publically enough - may well break what little trust is placed in the media as it is by its supposed readership. At which point we could see the NY Times reduced to the same level as the National Enquirer.

That's just at the national level, of course. Local papers still exist and, in my admittedly limited experience, tend to be even more slanted towards local attitudes and issues than your average church newsletter. How any of this will ultimately work out is beyond me.

Glenn does make the critical observation that we need to make what noise as we can when we can to make these issues known. We should be equally conscious that there are larger events in play that could help or hinder those efforts. But that's life, and it shouldn't dissuade any of us from doing what we can.

The best one was from Bill Kristol, who asked Juan Williams whether there could not be national acclaim, setting aside any basic disputes about the entry into armed conflict in Iraq, that the performance of Generals Petraeus and Odierno over the past year has been anything less than brilliant. Revealingly, Juan Williams was completely flustered by the question, and had no retort.

If by "best" you mean watching Kristol make an arse of himself again, sorry but Cookie still has him beat.

As for his attempt at a 'gotcha', I'd lump Petraeus and Odierno in the same column as Quintus Varus and Maj. General Charles George Gordon. Look 'em up to see why.

And do try to keep to the topic at hand, will you? These silly efforts at deflecting attention from where its needed reflect poorly on you and your species.

What is the conservative corollary to "Democracy Now!"?

Fox News.

Rush Limbaugh.

Dumb Imus.

MSNBC.

The Captial Gang and the Sunday slate of talk shows.

Get the picture, son? The 'conservative' crowd has plenty more outlets for its expulsions out of its collective colon.

Anyway, what do you care about NPR? Don't tell me you actually listen to alternative viewpoints.

This is NPR's great conceit. It is a decidedly left-wing network, and therefore self-selects its audience. With partial funding coming from that audience, it may feel compelled to respond to its audience's wishes and prejudices.

Something they already appear to be doing. Funny thing, that.

They feel like they need their own network to "counter" Fox News and Rush. If so, they should pour their support into Air America, and leave NPR alone.

"They" being who exactly, or is this just another generic "they" that are coming to exterminate us all?

For my part, I'd demand fairness and balance from NPR.

Then surely you'll demand the same from all other news outlets, yes? Or is it just from ones you don't automatically agree with?

As for your assertion of MSNBC as a "conservative" news outlet... all I can say is, HUH? The network that pays the salary of Keith Olbermann, the most odious and deranged Bush-hater in all of network news? That MSNBC?

Olbermann, 'odious and deranged'? We're talking about pretty much the only sane voice left in the media wilderness that doesn't have to resport to satire to be heard? That Keith Olbermann?

And yes, I listen to NPR all the time, and it only makes me all the more determined to correct its unforgiveable biases.

That 'bias' is called 'reality'. Try accepting it sometime. You'll find your spiritual anguish diminishes considerably.

I only demand fairness from "my" networks. The "public" networks.

Technically speaking, every radio network is "public" as it transmits over the public airwaves.

Guess that means they all need to be "fair" and "balanced", irregardless of who pays their bills, eh?