between where one sits on a political scale and what team one chooses to play for. I'm centrist in the economic scale but very libertarian on the authority scale. So I oppose the administration on two fronts. A. Their auhtoritarian streak which threatens to morph into fascism and B. Their utter failure to adhere to the principles of Conservatism as traditionally expressed.

about where the anthrax investigation ended up.

I have 3 speculations.

A. Hatfill is guilty but they can't prove it so they figure harassing him is the next best thing they can do.

B. Hatfill is innocent but the investigation led too far up the US food chain and had to be scuttled and leaving someone hanging in limbo as a "person of interest" was the best way to dissuade excess curiosity.

C. The FBI really doesn't have a clue whodunnit but they were harrssing Hatfill simply because it's fun.

Of course I'm not a big-time news organization so I'm free to speculate at will. ABC on the other hand actually has a responsibilty to seek the truth. We can all see how well THAT'S working out.....

Progressives who give Disney a dime for anything are helping to finance The Enemy

For those who doubt it I have just two things to say

The Path to 9/11....

The 700 Club.....

That is all!

that Gonzales couldn't sufficiently get his story rehearsed to tell it on MTP that turned the tide.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/013511.php

But the subject keeps coming up.

If you want to know in detail who got it right, who got it wrong and for good measure who's making excuses and who's coming clean then read this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Feet-Fire-Media-After-Journalists/dp/1591023432

Feet to the Fire: The Media After 9/11, Top Journalists Speak Out (Hardcover)

Its even more interesting because the interviews themselves are 2 years old and even less was known then, than is known now about how badly we were misled.

The bottom line is that Knight-Ritter is the ONLY news organization that wasn't either bamboozled or complicit in the misinformation campaign. Anyone else who denies that at this point is suffering from self-serving denial worthy of the worst alcoholic.

is the degree to which the audience helps to drive the quality of programming that we end up with.

The difference between the coverage of Viet Nam (which I recall as being much better) and our current situation is much more than just the fairness doctrine. The number of outlets for information is ballooning while the number of entities in charge of content is dwindling. Viacom alone has 21 separate logos on the front page of their website including Comedy Central and MTV. The result is that the competition for eyeballs is fierce and sex, flashing lights and explosions (not necessarily in that order) are the easiest way to draw people's attention. Quality reporting on the issues of the day is a non-starter. Unless of course it can be depicted as a cat-fight. It's no wonder that Nancy Pelosi gats the kind of coverage she does. It's as if our entire media infrastructure has devolved to the National Enquirer.

To simply blame "Corporate Media" is to oversimplify. Corporations are just collections of individuals and they don't operate in a vacuum.

I don't disagree with you. The point I was trying to make is that corporations, by their very nature, are going to go where the money is. If there's money to be made pointing out how corrupt the administration is and how the war was started with a pack of lies, then someone will step in to fill the void. Oh wait a minute, did I say that Viacom owns the Comedy Channel?

are we in a position to improve things? The obvious answer is yes. My point is that the viewing public has a lot to say about the direction that media takes at any given time. I think Glenn's point is that there are a lot of people who could be described as "corporate" who are nevertheless on the right side of some important questions. And a number of people have piped in to the effect that the rise of the blogosphere and of other independent information sources is a natural source of pressure on the old media to get with the program and realize that the same BS isn't going to sell yet again.

One need only compare the current mood to that of Spring 2003 to realize that we have indeed come a long way.

Likewise crow.....

Except when it's in your self interest to willfully ignore it. Anyone with a passing knowlege of history and the Constitution know why this "dictatorial" thinking is misguided and wrong. What I personally find more interesting is the insights into human nature which were apparent to the founders that caused them to frame the founding documents the way they did in the first place.

They knew that they had to impart the war-making powers to the legislature specifically because as the representatives most closely accountable to the people, they would be the ones least likely to use military engagements as a tool of self aggrandizement. They understood well how the combination of a fearful populace and ambitious leaders could result in evil forces acting under the umbrella of arbitrary law.

To those who think of themselves as individuals first and then members of society, is is indeed excruciatingly basic and obvious. To those who subsume their individuality to their tribal loyalties, it needs to be explained....again....and again.....and again....