Glenn:

As Atrios noted the other day, it is actually far from clear that Keith Olbermann is a "liberal" at all; what "liberal" policies specifically does Olbermann advocate?

What Olbermann actually is, first and foremost, is a critic of the government who adopts an aggressively adversarial posture towards the President and those in power. That actually is -- or at least used to be -- called "journalism." What ought to define the function of political "journalists" is that they exercise adversarial oversight over government officials. That is the only thing that makes a political press worthwhile.

Another way of saying this is that Olbermann is a liberal--in the 18th Century/Enlightenment/free speech/consent of the governed/separation of powers sense. And this really is the political dividing line in America today--18th Centrury liberalism vs. the plutocratic, theocratic authoritarianism of Versailles.

The type of journalism that Olbermann does is precisely the sort that the Adams Administration (our first monarchist regime) criminalized with the Alien and Sedition Acts. (See, for example, American Aurora: A Democratic-Republican Returns: The Suppressed History of Our Nation's Beginnings and the Heroic Newspaper That Tried to Report It). We've been through this before, and those who do remember it remember it as one of the most shameful episode in our nation's history.

What we have now is a sociologically-defined role of Versailles journalist--a "court reporter" in the "court of Louis XIV" sense of the word "court". There are three approved roles: stenographer, hagiographer and gossip. All are de facto court functionaries, as Glenn goes on to describe:

The defining role of a "journalist" -- especially national journalists -- is to serve as a status-quo-perpetuating spokesperson for Beltway power circles. As long as one fulfills that role, one is free to spout any pro-government ideological or political opinions one wants....

National journalists are as integrated into the Beltway elite culture as much as the political figures they are supposed to investigate and scrutinize.

It's a good thing that AP is attacking Kieth Olbermann. It shows that he's doing his job. And AP is doing theirs, in the Nedra Pickler era--much to the shame of what AP used to stand for.

Mona:

"News" is now everywhere on cable, 24/7, and must be entertaining to keep ratings. That is only part of the explanation, but it is a significant part. As libertarian as I am and allergic to such accusations, I'd almost call it a market failure.

It's really simple Mona: the market is a wonderful servant, but a terrible master.

You want better bridges, you study bridge failure, to learn how to avoid it. You want better markets, you study market failure, to learn how to avoid it. Folks like you are actually the enemies of successful markets.

Of course, this common-sense observation drives a stake through the heart of your beloved libertarianism. But those are the breaks.

Didn't see the email. That's not primarily my account anymore, which is why I asked you to put my name in the subject. Can you resend with my name?

Also, do you have any links handy to a comment where you explain in detail the Versailles press metaphor?

What's to explain? The thing explains itself.

But, now that you mention it, maybe I ought to do that.

@Paul R

Of course, this common-sense observation drives a stake through the heart of your beloved libertarianism. But those are the breaks.

No it doesn't. As revolting as I find the current state of the "news" to be, there is no cure that would not be worse by seriously impairing freedom, as Mr. Dirks noted. People do not always use their liberty in ways I like, but letting them do so beats paternalism and totalitarianism every time.

Just as abolishing the FDA is the way to protect public health. Because it seriously impairs the freedom of those whose lives it saves.