. . . the core journalistic function, which is to report on our government adversarially and to view it as a target of scepticism. -- GG

is the key phrase.

Where politics is concerned, a person who sides with the dominant class is always more likely to succeed as an individual in matters related to wealth, power and prestige. When this much power, money and prestige is on the table, it would be extremely difficult, even for the most idealistic of people, to take the role of sceptic.

But that is a journalists job, first, foremost and forever. To speak truth to power on behalf of those who have no voice.

And they have failed. Broder has failed. Klein has failed. The main stream media, for all practical purposes, has completely failed in its duty and responsibility to inform the American public of the truth that lies behind our government's most important decisions.

They have no excuse, because there is no excuse.

I've read other posts of yours. You seem like a reasonable person. But I too, am confused.

I will not argue from the abstract, but try to be as specific as possible.

The U.S. is engaged in an occupation of another country based on lies. Many people have speculated on the short and long-term benefits of our occupation of Iraq. Reality will eventually settle those questions. Almost no one at this point questions the cost in lives. And only a minority of Americans questions the loss of America's leadership role in the world as a result of our illegal invasion of Iraq. The rest of the international community holds us in contempt for what we have done (and may still do) to many millions of innocent people.

This illegal war was made possible by the support of the media. If not for the trumpet calls to war that we listened to day after day for months, the American people (and most certainly the international community) would never have allowed this.

The media has a great deal of responsibility in this. The media reported no real news and did very little investigative journalism. The media, if fact, acted very much as a propaganda arm of the administration in leading us into war.

If Glenn did nothing else but call attention to the lies and misstatements and outright propaganda of the media, he would be doing as great a service to this society as anyone could expect.

We are not out of the dark. We are only one executive order away from initiating another illegal attack on another nation that is no direct threat to us. We are only a little propaganda away from entering into another illegal war of aggression against a sovereign nation.

We have committed war crimes. There is no doubt of it.

If Glenn's work can bring just the smallest bit of clear conscience and honesty to the media and in doing so stop this war and prevent another, I'm all for it.

But I sure like the hell out of Matt Taibbi. Like Glenn, he doesn't shirk one iota from calling foul on any play or any player, Republican or Democrat.

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/51687/?page=1

And that is a good thing since, inside the beltway, they're almost all players.

No, Glenn. Not weird. Just business as usual.

I've been listening to the same stuff come out of Bush's, Cheney's, Rice's, DeLay's (add about another 1000 Republican elected officials, media pundits and political operatives) mouths for years now.

I have been reading HuffPo for some time. Until last night, I have never had issue with the manner in which they managed the comments section of their articles. I believe last night was the first time I have ever submitted a comment that did not make it to the comments section.

Reading the comments that are currently posted under the recent article by Alter leads me to believe they may have changed their policy. The comment I submitted went something like this:

Mr. Alter,

Where to start? Let me see:

original reporting which is much more expensive than mouthing off at home.

Reed is a bad reporter

seemed reluctant to trash him

it was said with a pleasantly arch tone, neither serious nor sarcastic

grizzled reporters like us

he is an honest reporter and no ivy tower thumb-sucker.

Not a good habit to get into, Jebidiah, screwing with that one.

I should have known better than to trust a reporter I didn't know

too mind-blowing for the clueless pundit to absorb

paying for Reed's lunch, plus that of the Gravel entourage

our batting averages--and David Broder's--are a helluva lot higher than the Jebidiah Reeds of the world.

Your “original reporting which is much more expensive than mouthing off at home, Reed is a bad reporter, seemed reluctant to trash him, it was said with a pleasantly arch tone, neither serious nor sarcastic, he is an honest reporter and no ivy tower thumb-sucker, I should have known better than to trust a reporter I didn't know, too mind-blowing for the clueless pundit to absorb, paying for Reed's lunch, plus that of the Gravel entourage, our batting averages--and David Broder's--are a helluva lot higher than the Jebidiah Reeds of the world” sensibilities, grizzled as they are, seem to have been offended.

Another reason I have for believing that HuffPo may have heavily edited the comments is that the 14 comments that are there (as of 4:30 AM CST today) are, for the most part, relatively tame. Maybe these were the nicest ones they could find. HuffPo comment sections are normally as full of zingers as other political sites in the blogosphere and occassionally nearly as spicey as Firedoglake's. I hope that HuffPo's omission of any comments, mine included, are not indicative of a new policy modeled on that of the DoJ and White House email “moderators.”