I'd just soon shout at the tv screen than engage in that kind of warped discourse.

That's fine, Jaime, but you need to remember that's your choice.

I think it's OK to lead by example and try and create change in an online community... up to a point. Even with the deftest touch, coming to a public venue and insisting that your own esthetic standards be observed by all is rather problematic.

It's not "piling on" for me to note that your own touch has been less than deft at times, is it?

Over at Swampland last week, Ana Marie Cox was defending herself against commenter outrage over her attendance at John McCain's Sedona barbecue. Leave aside that AMC is not a "journalist" per se -- more or less a blogger who leveled up -- but listen to her defense

If someone was writing a profile of Steve Jobs, and he invited you over for dinner, a smart reporter would jump at the chance to see their subject in a relaxed atmosphere, in an environment completely unlike where he's typically interviewed. He may not say anything newsworthy, or he may bite the head off a live chicken. You can't control that part, but you can be there to see it happen. And you might learn something.

An odd example but let me expand: if Jobs had bitten the head off that chicken it would most likely have gone unreported, or laughed off as "Mr. Jobs' unorthodox dietary choices."

The (theoretical) value of somehow learning something in a social milieu is completely outweighed by the countervailing danger that the reporter will allow personal feelings to minimise or eliminate their necessary adversarial role.

This is obvious and really requires no comment. Some have (as Cox seems to have done) totally talked themselves out of this reality, and I do believe some know what they're doing and are just ignoring it so they can enjoy the "ribs" (here a metaphor for the good feelings of chummy closeness to power and its glamour).

Glenn says, correctly in my view, that "it won't change and the only real hope is to develop alternatives to it." My question (for everyone here) is what meaningful alternatives could there be? Blogs are nice, but we'll only ever reach a small percentage of the populace.

How does one create a new journalism?

What does Samantha Power saying Hillary Clinton is a "monster" have to do with the presidential campaign?

This post isn't about the presidential campaign, but about journalistic standards. And as I'm sure you know -- being a student at that fine university I desperately wanted to attend but couldn't get into -- standards have no value unless they are applied, as you note, consistently.

Now, are you saying that "a woman who is recognized as one of the world's experts on genocide and international law" should be exempt from that standard, and if so, how do you hold yourslef up as an advocate for judging others' consistency?

casual_observer, I watch Democracy Now! almost daily (streaming, as we haven't got a TV), and while I respect the body of Goodman's work, I've also seen her toss softballs with the best of them when she's got someone on her show with whom she agrees ideologically.

She has shown courage and tenacity in taking on issues that no other media outlet will take on, and I do honour and respect her for that. More Amy Goodmans would obviously be better than more Tucker Carlsons. But, again, PBS is almost as marginal an outlet as the blogs.

I mean, I appreciate your suggestion, and I suspect that there's not one simple answer to my question, and that we're not going to figure it out in one comments string

I just think we need -- desperately -- revolutionary change in our media, and I don't even know how to start bring that about. I don't know what barricades Glenn could send adnoto to storm.

angry, partisan, overly broad and out of bounds, no different than Limbaugh or Coulter.

Except, of course, it's "partisan" to declare Limbaugh or Coulter "out of bounds." That's for shrill types like Greenwald and Krugman... Limbaugh is merely "opinionated," while Coulter is a "humourist."

I know what you're saying, Glenn, but sometimes it seems to me that only one side gets called for being "off-centre."

This is intended as a respectful question: what sort of a reply did you expect to a comment that begins with "What's the big deal here?"

I personally think there is not a thing wrong with asking pointed questions... what I cannot for the life of me understand is why people think that they can post whatever they want and expect to get nothing but the utmost courtesy in response.

they would all be considered effete intellectuals

And let's not forget the biggest metrosexual of them all: JFK...