conversation between Glenn and his interlocuters on journalism. What I am mainly struck by is how "un-adversarial" (for lack of a better word) a view many have of the journalist's role. And how naive it seems to me that some would think that anything a politician gives you "on the record" would be revelatory of anything significant (not because politicians are evil but because it is just prudence to present yourself in the best light when on the record--a behaviour I follow too when in the public space). Surely it is part of the purpose of journalism to keep public figures on their toes, to help keep them accountable. And in this sense I view with joy the proliferation of tiny recording devices and the web to broadcast what they capture from what is after all a public space. Yes, there is a need for security and secrecy in some contexts: but then don't go blabbing those things in the public space. Again what I find so astonishing is the good faith arguments made by people here in earnest for what is essentially a belief that if they develop "relationships" with public figures they will reveal important things to the reporter. Sounds like a massive con-job has been presented to journalists under the cover of professional ethics to facilitate sophism.

your quote: "Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public."

Does it not seem to be the case that traditional open methods almost never yield information vital to the public? Of course, we would then have to discuss how we define all these key terms, but if by "traditional open methods" it is meant what some folks in the thread are arguing for for (which seems to be the modus operandi in the current climate) then it would seem nothing vital would ever come to light.

Upon reflection, I would go more with adversarial then skeptical, like lawyers with hostile witnesses, etc. I think we must presume the establishment figure will have a bias toward presenting themselves in the best possible light (again, not because they are evil, but because this is a normal behaviour). Thus, were I a public figure, I would welcome the adversarial relationship as one needed to help keep me honest.

I am thinking of good hard Socratic style questioning: a never ending sort of dialectical pressure.

By which I do not mean what Russert apparently thought he was doing but wasn't. May he RIP but that man really did not know how to question people at all.

footone to footnote, over.

footone=footnote.

--restaurant recommendation request

--revolution by lolcats

Two good smiles for me today. Thanks.

thanks for the link to the article at

http://tinyurl.com/5l7bwg

She does indeed seem to make a case that FISA is a red herring, and that might be what is behind Obama's stance.

Have you read her post Glen? I wonder what your response to it would be?

read this article, which if it makes a good argument, would very much change the discussion? I would love to see some informed response to it.

http://tinyurl.com/5l7bwg

quoted the article over at KOS http://tinyurl.com/5l7bwg but no one has commented on what to me would be its key contention vis a vis the discussion here: that the FISA bill is a red herring, that the real issue is the patriot act, and that to get at that Obama would have to choose his battles:

In terms of constitutional safeguards, the current FISA bill is a non-issue. Yes, it allows telecoms to raise "color of law" immunity as an affirmative, threshhold defense. And yes, that means the telecoms very likely will never be held to account for violations of FISA. But the secrecy of FISA warrants themselves voids the Fourth Amendment, if information gained from those warrants can be used in a criminal trial.

I'm convinced that Barack Obama recognizes this. I'm sure he recognizes that this bill is a classic political bait-and-switch, wrapping telecom immunity in the mantle of "safeguarding our constitutional rights," when in fact those rights are already voided by use of secret, non-reviewable FISA warrants to gather information for criminal cases. I'm sure Barack Obama realizes that this petty knoll is not "the hill to die on."

"The hill to die on" is the USAPA's breaking down the wall of separation between intelligence-gathering and criminal investigation. And that is not even at issue yet. We'll need a Democratic president, and at least 60 Democratic senators, to fight that battle.

So please, folks, let's keep this bill in context. If you're counting on FISA to safeguard your Fourth Amendment rights ... they're already gone.

If this point is valid then Obama has not sold out, etc., but only made a shrewd tactical decision to fight the battles where they would mean something. That is the point I would be interested in seeing the intelligent ones here comment on. I would like someone to engage her article and say whether it is sound or not. Glenn? (If you have the time :))