Glenn:

Paul has thought about these issues for a long time and has many developed, detailed and complex theories about them. I like hearing those theories including when they deviate from what I think -- probably even especially then. But the points of disagreement are often very fine and subtle and not easily illuminated in a comment section.

But I don't think it's accurate to say that we think exactly the same about this issue or else he wouldn't be writing each time I make this point to say that he doesn't quite agree with it.

Glenn's absolutely right--not just here, but in the whole comment I'm quoting from. I do think people were right in spirit, however, sensing that Glenn had over-responded to relatively minor differences. But that was my fault for expressing myself a bit carelessly in the passage he picked up on.

The greatest benefit, however, lies not in any one particular comment, but in how conversations evolve, the insights that bubble up from them. To put things simply: Glenn is working from inside, I'm working from outside, but we're both poking at similar (or at least related) sorts of flaws in the bubble. Glenn keeps hammering on specific contradictions and the fact that various internal claims by journalistic practitioners don't add up.

OTOH, I'm more interested in how these contradictions reflect patterns of power and justification that span different fields I've studied to varying degrees. (I'm actually most intrigued by what I know least about--the growing tip of attention, the stuff I'm actively working on trying to figure out, and integrate.)

For me, the most rewarding thing I've written in this comment thread is "The Destruction of Truth As A Political Goal"

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/05/03/politico/permalink/e311f215fd514c9171c770dc1910ddaa.html

But maybe it's not for anyone else. (Explaining why it's most rewarding might take 10 times as long as the comment itself.) At some point, however, the insights bubbling up through it--or others inspired by (or in opposition to) them--will find their ways back into our conversation in a way that will bear some unexpected fruit. All in good time.

And, of course, I hardly mean to exclude other fellow travellers in this journey from mention. If I had to speak up in appreciation every time another commenter here said something illuminating, I doubt I'd have much time to finish anything of my own.

Yes, they had talk radio before the fairness doctrine was abolished, but it was issue-oriented and not devoted to the talking points, platforms, and cynical strategies of any one political party like it is now.

In fact, it was more conversational. More "talk" and less call-and-response.

I like my call-and-response with music.

I grew up in the San Francisco Bay Area. We had a rather liberal talk radio host, Les Crane, on KGO, who occassionally made reference to Joe Pyne.

Crane did occassionaly mock rightwing callers--I remember one in particular who was strutting his patriotic stuff, and Crane said something to the effect of, "I know you're on your deathbed, about to give your last drop of your blood for your country, but could you please try to answer my question." But that's about as strong as it got.

For the most part, he was a liberal by virtue of the ideas he put out, and the topics he raised. There was no censorship or control games with his callers that I recall, and he had some regular conservative callers whom he was not just civil, but downright friendly with. He enjoyed debate and the challenge of differing ideas.

I did hear Joe Pyne on one or two occassions when I was down in LA, and was struck by how strident he was, in contrast.

HG:

My old email is unfortunately still disabled. But you can contact me through work. Our website is www.randomlengthsnews.com. Go to the "Contact Us" page & you'll see an email for me. But be sure to flag me in the subject line.

Strangely Enough:

is it any coincidence that the story comes the same day that Edwards saying in front of an audience that Congress should send Bush the same war-funding bill over and over until he signs it?

to put into terms they just might understand.... The Politico is writing about the wrong movie. They're thinking something in the neighborhood of Shampoo, when they should be thinking Groundhog Day

IngSoc--

Your summary is not exactly what I was saying. But I would largely agree with it.

IntrovertGirl--

Glenn and I are not fighting. Nor are we short-tempered. (Or, if Glenn is, he's doing a great job of hiding it.) And The Great Gatsby is, well, great.

If you didn't like it the first time, why read it three more times? That would sure make me cranky, if I didn't like it.

Jonathan Hoag--

I agree that the Rich pardon got a lot more play than the Wienberger pardon. But google hits are a poor measure, given the difference in when they occurred. A controlled Lexis/Nexis search would be far more siginficant.

Google (clinton

It's only fitting that a country lead by a former cheerleader should have this sort of foreign policy. And so, in the spirit of patriotism, I'm humbly submitting my own offering:

Winning is good!

Losing is bad!

We're got the best president

We've ever had!

Oh, and speaking of plagiarism. Didn't NBC's Heroes already use the promo line, "Save the cheerleader, save the world"?