Glenn cited the poll that tells him Americans mistrust their media.

As to the lies about Iraq, that's so well established as to not require citing. There were no WMDs and Saddam had no links to 9-11.

The problem with yearly awards is that they are predicated on the assumption that award worthy behaviour will have happened in a given field of endeavour every year.

Every year, a movie wins the oscar for best picture. But not every "best picture" is as good as the next.

I much prefer the military system for awarding medals for bravery: It requires an actual act of bravery, and is not merely given out yearly.

If Peabodies were only given out occasionally when some media figure had done reporting worthy of it, then it would have more weight for me.

The lesson I take most from Altemeyer's work is indeed the very truth of FDR's most important words: "The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself"

The more fear, the more irrationality, the more foolish society's choices become and the easier manipulated they are by the double-highs.

The thing I ponder now, is how to institutionalize mechanisms that would work against fear consistently in our democratic systems. Ways of promoting rationality and dampening paranoia.

I'm open to suggestions, but reforms are needed so nothing like the last 6 years ever happens again.

Methinks ABC was hoping everyone just forgot about all this anthrax stuff...it's in the past, "Move on"

At the very least, a mea culpa from ABC is required, and an explanation of who the sources were, why they were trusted and assurances they will not be trusted again.

But really, they should out these liars.

Hoo. Fucking. Ray.

Well, it's better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. Funny that they focus on Iglasias and not Lam.

Maybe Hiatt was reviewing some of the Post's glory days in the Watergate coverage and noticed that Saturday Night Massacre thing and thought "Oh yeah, firing prosecutors is a questionable act that should be justified in acceptable fashion"

In Malkin's world, Joan exists only to continually reaffirm every stated belief of hers in every instance it occurs.

To wit:

I heard there was a Christian murdered the other day, Joan, and I didn't see you stating your objection to it. Are you pro-murder now too so long as the victim is a Christian? What, only godless athiests don't deserve murder in your eyes?

See how easy that is?

Oh and Glenn Greenwald has done some fine work exposing all the major right wing bloggers for using nobody commenters on left wing blogs to make broad sweeping generalizations about the left. Considering most of the right wing blogs don't even allow comments, this is particularly ironic. So when DailyKos userid #99999999 registered last week posts a diary with a racist word in it, and gets troll rated, it's just the same as if Kos himself put it on the front page. Totally representative of the community standard!

What an idiotic and substance free, easily rebutted response ABC makes. Particularly, they changed their story, and used the white house's denial to cover their asses. What happened? Why was the White House's new denial considered important enough to override their sources all of a sudden?

Did the sources change stories? What did the sources say about being wrong? ABC can give us plenty more on these sources even without outing them.

Are the sources still trusted for stories? Were they ever trusted again?

The Path-to-911 sham really was representative of what is wrong with the Network, and not some fluke aberration or 1 time failure of standards.

They would have been better to let it lie and pretend Glenn's Salon column isn't important enough for them to respond to. Now it's clear they know about the problem, and obtusely get the details of their mistake wrong, and issue an insufficient retraction.

How the conversation went down where the White House denied ABC's story initially. Was it a non-denial denial? I mean there's a lot of parsing ways to deny something, but give a reporter the notion to go with the story anyway...to wit:

ABC: We have sources claiming a positive bentonite test linking the samples to Iraq. Can you confirm?

WH: No, we're not prepared to confirm that, at this time.

OR

WH: We haven't reached that conclusion.

OR

WH: I do not have that information.

OR (a proper denial)

WH: The initial tests did not find bentonite and we have no evidence the anthrax has an Iraqi origin.

Serious question, ABC News, if you are reading: What did the White House say to you when they denied this story? Verbatim please.

I mean, here's the one instance where the White House wasn't publicly peddling lies and hyping unlikely links between terrorism and Saddam, and the media goes off on its own to create one for them!

It's beyond remarkable. Which is what makes me doubt the White House's denial was categorical or assertive enough to make ABC hesitant to report on it.

The sole justification for every Republican cover up and obstruction of justice forever more.

Just like Clinton justifies their every wrong doing.

Good stalwart Conservatives, whose variable morality is based solely on what they perceive anyone else has done. Well guys, Stalin executed millions, and was never punished for it. Guess that's ok too now in Conservatopia.