But it might also be interesting to examine just WHY the MSM is doing this. It's partly the reporters themselves maintaining their cozy relationships with those still in power, yes, but don't you think if those reporters *bosses* told them to go at the job another way, they would?

No. I don't think there is one overaching, simple explanation as to why the media behaves as it does ("Corporate capitalist bosses want $$$$$$ -- GOP gives them $$$$$!").

How did you find out the Bush administration was eavesdropping on Americans illegally? How did you learn that it was maintaining secret prisons in Eastern Europe? Or engaging in rendition? Or torturing people? Or neglecting Walter Reed?

This is the front-page headline in today's Washington Post: "Hussein's Prewar Ties To Al-Qaeda Discounted" -- and the first paragraph of the article:

Captured Iraqi documents and intelligence interrogations of Saddam Hussein and two former aides "all confirmed" that Hussein's regime was not directly cooperating with al-Qaeda before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, according to a declassified Defense Department report released yesterday.

The declassified version of the report, by acting Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble, also contains new details about the intelligence community's prewar consensus that the Iraqi government and al-Qaeda figures had only limited contacts, and about its judgments that reports of deeper links were based on dubious or unconfirmed information. The report had been released in summary form in February.

The report's release came on the same day that Vice President Cheney, appearing on Rush Limbaugh's radio program, repeated his allegation that al-Qaeda was operating inside Iraq "before we ever launched" the war, under the direction of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the terrorist killed last June.

Why did the corporate bosses allow such stories out? Everyone who has an Overaching Unifying Theory about how things work can always take contrary evidence and use it to support their theory (they do that to create the illusion of a working press, etc. etc.).

But there are multiple explanations for why the press operates as it does and all sorts of motivations that explain every individual journalists' and editor's decisions. That the largest corporations own the largest media outlets is undoubtedly a factor in how they function, but it doesn't explain everything, and even that factor has multiple aspects to it beyond "corporations love the GOP" (e.g., viewing newspapers and news divisions as profit centers places an emphasis on reporting that is cheap, gossipy and easy over substantive investigative work that requires far more resources).

I don't think you meant that to imply the people being polled felt that way about Pelosi opening such talks rather than the president.

This is a really great point - and if they do a poll asking how people feel about Pelosi's trip to Syria, you can point out that they didn't ask about how people felt if she wore a scarf. And if they do a poll asking how people felt about her wearing a scarf, you can point out that they didn't ask how people would feel if the scarf were green. And if they ask that, you can point out that it says nothing about how they view her wearing a green scarf on the street instead of the mosque.

Again, you are taking inferences that you draw and then pointing out that I offered no proof to support your own inferences (as opposed to statements I actualy make). It's an extremely annoying and irrational tactic and this is going to be the last time I respond to it.

If even you "don't think [I] meant that to imply the people being polled felt that way about Pelosi opening such talks rather than the president," what is your point? Forget I asked. Please. But if you're aware of information that is more relevant about how Americans think about a visit to Syria than the polling information I cited, do post it.

JimC:

I believe with all my being that homosexuality is wrong, unnatural, immoral, and perverted. When I see homosexual people proudly displaying their “gayness” it feels painful to me. To me, it feels like a part of the America we once were, is being lost, it feels like the family values of the founders of this country are being destroyed and twisted. I feel as if my children’s purity is under attack. That by being forced to accept alternative lifestyles, I cannot teach my children what I believe to be right and wrong.

Wow. That's really repulsive - at least everything after the word "immoral" (everything before that is just plain misguided but harmless).