...but neither did you read it critically. Your fair question, "Say what?" has now been answered. And you have some responsibility to the newsmaker you've ridiculed on an apparently false premise; she had no control over Drudge's transcription.

Although obviously thou mindest.

(Some Greenwald typos are expected, but not in headlines.)

McCain added that President Barack Obama should "speak out that this election is flawed," a position that many foreign affairs experts have contradicted.

I clicked the link on "contradicted" and of course saw no foreign affairs experts contradicting the claim that the election was flawed. War Room should make it clear that Reuters' experts are questioning not the election's corruptions, but whether the President would be aiding Iranian democracy and advancing net U.S. interests if he spoke forcefully about them.

Father's Day is all about retail sales and zero about me and I am having none of it.

Some Pretty Good Gifts For Him to be found there. Garrison, you've earned your great success. But if it's all about retail sales, then it is about you, far more than most. This hippie pose does not ring true.

As in: how can we change our institutions so that women like Emmie find themselves as respected as they were in this forum, and as supported as possible in the real world?

Were Times blog responses put up in real time, as Salon's are, there would have been many more abusive posts. A forum is an ecosystem, and tight moderation is non-linear in its impact on the responses ultimately written and shown.

On the other hand, it is a Broadsheet commonplace that women who share their stories an an open forum should expect support and validation at all times. That's nonsense. If you're going to put your ideas out there, better get used to some give and take; criticism, even vehemence, is a structural feature, not a defect. But Salon does let abusive posts run to extremes, and should permit user filtering by screen name.

And his arms are in the right place. He's using both of them to hold his own head out in front of his body and facing toward it, the better to investigate human nature with "detachment."

He even compares these folks to cows, if you accept that sort of Broadsheet-style schoolyard textual analysis.

Methinks Kate Harding will be beside herself.

Approximately, instead of "prevent this kind of crisis from happening again" he said "prevent the kind of crisis that is happening again." Least that's what I heard. Awaiting the transcript.

In their words, "comparing yourself to the magazine photos of movie stars in bikinis a few weeks after giving birth does not necessarily make real-life motherhood for the average woman any easier either."

Broadsheet's issue, by contrast, is with the very existence of these celebrity photos. New mothers, in this view, have some sort of entitlement never to be subject to media images that may demoralize them. Never mind that these images coexist with tens of millions of others, are viewed by choice, and are disseminated by the celebrity new mothers themselves, entrepreneurs in an attention economy.

Broadsheet's stock-in-trade is the victim pose. Do its writers not recognize the many instances where their very premise is totalitarian control? Moreover, by denying agency both to celebrity and noncelebrity new mothers, Broadsheet infantilizes women, while the Institute inoculates them against any temptation to emulate.

That metaphor is a bit unclear. Is it intended to mean that Andersson undermines his argument unwittingly? Or does it mean that his argument mirrors a point made by those of an opposite political persuasion?

I think it's a fair argument that "bailout socialism" rewards reckless and entrenched elites; it's a common argument against any form of socialism, from both the left and the right. The new boss will be the same as the old boss, but the society loses its engine of wealth-creation when denied the discipline of markets.

Glenn, isn't it a fair point that Alicia is an ombudsman, not a decision-maker? She is tasked with annunciating the corporate line, giving listeners a contact-point through which to voice and aggregate their concerns, and passing those concerns along to management. Does she really need to be grilled on this issue in real time, or to say "yes, you're right," if she has no authority to effect changes?

Those who want to locate webcasts of NPR programs should visit the invaluable PublicRadioFan.com for schedules crosslisted hour-by-hour, program-by-program, station-by-station worldwide.

For TOTN in particular, you can go straight to:

http://publicradiofan.com/cgibin/program.pl?programid=16

No reason to put all the pressure arising from this controversy on a single station's web service.

By this I simply mean that one of her roles, when faced with those challenging some element of coverage, is to convey the editorial reasoning behind it. She then has the independent standing to take the side of management, or of those raising the concerns. But I still don't see the point of making this about her. Instead, you should be able to make your argument on Talk of the Nation, with an NPR decision-maker also invited.

In other words, NPR News should absolutely be accountable, but it is not a fair automatic expectation that Glenn Greenwald, in an adversarial stance, should control the venue. (In Firing Line debates, for example, the moderator was Kinsley, not Buckley.) Your position should be aired today, in your voice if possible; the issue has escalated well beyond the ombudsman, who I think is entitled to her options as to direct confrontation.

...just "countless others." She's comparing the response to her maneuver to Obama, Clinton and Biden not completing their respective Senate terms. In BHO's case, his first term.

It's like comparing an AWOL to a promotion; hey, either way, you're no longer doing the job for which you signed. She's just passing the ball, i.e. walking off the field. Accountability is for the little people.

I'm sure she'll explain further in her next Quitter Twitter.