Glenn,

I agree with you in part, but you should acknowledge the difference between Olbermann and Hume, the difference between Olbermann and O'Reilly- really the difference between Olbermann and all of Fox News. And that is this: Olbermann does not remotely try to conceal his point of view, i.e. try to deceive, a.k.a. lie, to his audience. Fox News on the other hand assiduously promotes its 'fair and balanced' fig leaf of 'objectivity'. It's right there in the tag line for a reason.

The veneer exists both for politics and for profit. It's dittoheads want to believe that the 'news' they are getting is news and not what it really is, propaganda, to make the real world look much more like the one of their choosing. Meanwhile, the fig leaf yields to the powers Fox propaganda benefits a much more effective microphone: were it seen as an opinion outlet, and not a news outlet, it would have a more difficult time selling the horseshit narratives it sells, a more difficult time advocating its smears, ignoring news, etc. This is something the left currently doesn't but could make use of. It only requires the sale of ones soul.

Think about it. O'Reilly for example won't even call himself a Republican. Hannity does, but Fox 'offset' that by throwing a few minutes to the emasculated, inept Alan Colmes. Fox News Sunday puts its own emasculated liberal on a panel with 3 other conservatives and Chris Wallace, whose ideology seems to be self-promotion, but more often is just another in the litany of righties. Put it to you like this- O'Reilly feigns incredulity that Obama wouldn't go on his show. Has Olbermann ever pulled that garbage with McCain or Bush? Of course not- he knows neither would ever concede to be interviewed on his show, and doesn't have it in him (for whatever are his flaws) to feign outrage at the obvious reason why. That type of amoral deception can only be found on the right where its victory that's the only thing (no offense to the late great Lombardi, but its a fitting motto for these heel clickers).

It is for that reason that Olbermann's on-air remark apologizing the brazen Republican propaganda that exploited the 9/11 tragedy- because of the fact that it was brazen propaganda- was so inexcusable by the 'elites'. The ethic is to maintain the pretense. He could highlight that it was propaganda, and that it was offensive, but only very obliquely, e.g. 'that runs the risk of coming across as...' (and of course, when scoring a liberal point on an MSM outlet, it is necessary to be far more oblique than when scoring a conservative one). The horse shit plausible deniability, that everyone knows is horse shit but which can be thrown into the faces of critics. It is idiosyncratic horse shit to be sure, but it is real, and much of the demotion of Olbermann can be attributed to it.

Here's a better question: what does all that say about this society? Why do we persist in treating open secrets as unknown or ambiguous when we all know what's going on, even the perpetrators of the farce? It's inexplicable.

That Ambinder uses. "Lying liars". It's a tip of the hat to Michael Moore's book. Just another example where criticism and rhetoric for the left is water off the duck's back- to be dismissed immediately as alienated from the mainstream, not 'of the cool kids'- while these types take seriously criticism from the right. Which is to say, the people.

And that's it really. Accepting or embracing the logic and rhetoric of the Left (even when impeccably documented, cogent and otherwise assembled like a Swiss watch), is simply a non-starter. It's part of why Olbermann grates so hard on the whole scene- because the mouth foamers from the right are really mainstream, and we moon bats from the left, (of which I'm not really a member, but whatever), are not, are not even really people, in an almost Orientalist sense.

In any case, I do appreciate your quixotic quest here Glenn, but these press people's hair is being raised precisely because they like they're go along to get along life, and taking your advice would put an end to it. It is quixotic because there are simply no where near enough people like you running around getting civically involved and who feel a deep sense of duty in this country. There aren't and our political system, to say nothing of the state of our leadership in all things public and private make that patently obvious. There's plenty of piety on parade, but none left over for actual worship. In other words, I am of the opinion that the problems in the news media are simply a manifestation of the underlying problems of the country- that, by way of simplification, we are too fat and happy, and have been for too long.

If that is the case, the technical correctness of criticism like yours will be ineffectual until the underlying problems are relieved. This will happen too because the same irresponsible sloth and moral degradation that has allowed the country to slide has landed us in a debt trap, the effects of which will ultimately include quite a bit of slimming and unhappiness. There are no coincidences...