The arrogance of ABC News is astounding. Is there any reason at all we should trust their judgment? The only thing news divisions care about any longer is ratings, and ratings are driven by beating the competition to sensational stories, which provides an incentive for inconclusive research and half-hearted scrutiny about the credibility of sources. What does Schneider even mean when he says the story was approved at "highest level?" The highest level people are the ones most concerned about ratings. Why should we trust their judgment?

What is clear, and what we should always keep in mind is ABC News is not in the business of producing news, it is in the business of producing viewers -- that is, eyeballs for their sponsors. Nothing produces viewers more effectively than sensational stories. If Brian Ross were fed a story about little green men from Mars, he'd report it because he gets paid a lot of money to create sensational stories. He is not interested in what is true, nor are his bosses at ABC News. Nothing they report should ever be taken any more seriously than an episode of My Name is Earl.

The fact that the corporate media fail to even consider that they may have failed to do their jobs properly in the lead up to the Iraq invasion is just proof that they have no interest in the truth.

Glenn,

Thank you for your wonderful reporting, and astonishing insights. It will be my pleasure to support your blog, even though the little I can afford probably won't make a big difference.

... that despite all their chest thumping, neo-conservatives are really cowards at heart. They want their daddy Bubba Bush to protect them.

"Hey, Mr. Taxman, I didn't file my tax return this year because I accidently mislaid my receipts and forms. It is just an innocent mistake."

... that the same rational adults who have elected George Bush president TWICE, should be trusted with self medication?

...if the ONLY people they needed to convince to purchase their drugs were the patients.

Glenn,

You make some convincing arguments for your point of view on this matter, but I'd be really concerned about how the drug industry would develop if they could control the market simply through advertising. Will it develop like the beer industry, where each product is virtually same and it is only the brand's image that separates them? We're already awash in drug commercials, but they still have to tell you to consult your doctor. While the system is far from perfect, the doctor at least acts as a balance to the claims of the drug makers. Without this check, we would start seeing commercials featuring a starlet like Lindsay Lohan decked out for a night on the town, putting the last touches on her mascara, and then, turning to the camera, she'd say, "I'm not ready for the next Holywood party until I've revved my engine." Then she'd open her golden pill case, pop the lid, then pop a little red tablet into her mouth. Cut to the scene of her driving off in her red Ferrari. Or, imagine the steroid commercials featuring famous athletes aimed at teenage boys.

People who are ill aren't always going to be rational, and certainly drug manufacturers are not above capitalizing on that fact.

Given the fact that most of the comments from your loyal readers disagree with you, I think it is safe to conclude that most of us don't trust ourselves to make reasoned, rational decisions about what drugs to take.

Most liberals never supported the invasion of Iraq, because we recognized that a. it was unnecessary, b. it would result in chaos, and c. the cost in American and Iraqi lives would be staggering. So your simplistic categorization of our continued opposition to this war as "defeatist" is completely without merit and is clearly the result of your inability to make a genuine argument to support your view.

If a president has unchecked power in times of war (crisis), then what incentive does the president have to work for peace? His good intentions? Ha!

Beyond this, you know that if a Democratic president tried these same arguments, the right would try to flay him alive.

Either that or he is just stupid, because it is clear to anyone who read your original post what you mean, Glenn. I'm not even an elite, Washington-based media mega star and I got it.

Glenn,

You can bet if Klein, Altar, et. al. are upset by left-wing bloggers it is only because you guys are making an impact. Otherwise they would just ignore you like they do anything liberal.

...between deliberately attacking civilians and being willing to kill civilians as collateral damage, when you know there is a 100% chance that some civilians will die as a result of your attacks on military targets? In both cases, the attackers justify their actions by assuming some greater good will result from the deaths. We attack Iraq knowing full well that civilians will die, and we justify those deaths with lies and deceit. This is a fact. It has happened. Yet, some polling numbers hypothetically indicating that some American Muslims might support civilian attacks is looked at as if it indicates a great danger from this group. Hello, right wingers, the American government has killed thousands of innocent Muslim civilians. The American Muslims surveyed have killed no one. So who is most dangerous? Who is most to be feared? And who is more depraved?

... if Joe Klein would be willing to go to Iraq and see for himself how much progress is being made.

Supporting your view about conservatives is the way in which they villified Senator Jim Jeffords of Vermont when he bolted from their party. Jeffords was one of the few who, early on, understood that he could not stomach George Bush as the leader of the Republican party, let alone the free world.