I didn't read this as in any way having to do with John's opinion of Kurtz as a journalist. It would be different if the words "are" and "you" were reversed - that is "some people say you are left, some people say you are right, I think you are fair". Only then does your reading of this make any sense. Of course, I could be wrong...

You make a very strong case -- so strong, in fact, that I question whether my original understanding is accurate, so I added an update.

Glenn is being plain dishonest (which is a not a rare thing) in his characterization of Hume by not telling you that Hume said those things in a pundit roundtable.

(1) You should learn how to read. This is what I said: "Every single weekend, Brit Hume goes on Fox and sits at the end of the little panel table and invokes the snidest tone possible to spit out the bitterest, most partisan attacks on Democrats."

(2) Beyond that statement -- where I made clear that Hume launches his most partisan attacks on the weekend panel -- I didn't state or imply whether Hume was making these nakedly partsian comments wearing his "news anchor hat" or his "commentator hat" precisely because the point is irrelevant. Hume is as partisan as it gets, even when he hides it in order to masquerade as a news anchor.

(3) Claiming that Hume wears an "anchor" hat sometimes and a "commentator" hat other times does not distinguish his situation from Olbermann's. That is exactly the argument MSNBC is making about Olbermann:

Olbermann knows to leave his opinions at home when he anchors events, said Phil Griffin, NBC News senior vice president.

Keith's an adult," Griffin said. "He can tell when it's appropriate to express himself in a commentary and when to be a journalist. That's one of his strengths. He knows exactly the tone and his role when he's doing anything."

You were under the impression that you were rebutting MSNBC's argument to defend and distinguish Hume, but you were actually mimicking it. You're confused about what the issues are about which you're commenting and you think you're supporting an argument which is actually the opposite of the one you're making.

Could someone identify any specific views that Keith Olbermann has that demonstrates he is a "liberal" in the sense that it's meant (i.e., in the left-wing Democratic Party sense, rather than the classical 18th Century sense Paul Rosenberg described earlier)? I'm not saying he has none, but I honestly don't know of any.

Does anyone have it? If so, please email me (GGreenwald@salon.com) or, if you really prefer, leave it here. Thanks.

This little exchange needs a correction:

Anonymous: Hi, Howard. We hear incessantly about how this group or that group is funded by George Soros, as though that fact, by itself, proves the group's political affiliations. But those groups do not purport to be nonpartisan newspapers or sources of news. The Politico claims exactly that. Surely it is notable that those who created The Politico, who are funding it, and who are in charge of its operations, are long-time Republican operatives and those firmly implanted in right-wing circles. What do you think?

Howard Kurtz: If John Harris, Jim VandeHei, Mike Allen and Roger Simon are longtime Republican operatives, somehow it's escaped my notice.

The questioner said nothing about the staff of thePolitico.com, but about its ownership.

Amazing, isn't it? In his defense, maybe he doesn't know about the Politico ownership piece I wrote, so I am going to send it to him and ask that he clarify what he said in response to that questioner.

I'll be interested to see how Kurtz responds to you (if he does).

I emailed Kurtz about the Politico ownership in light of his response in that chat and this is what he replied:

That's an important point, and good for you for getting on it. I took the question to be about the Politico's journalists.

He took the question to be "about the Politico's journalists" even though the questioner started off expressly talking about funding and asked about who owns and runs the Politico. That's believable.

Then when I replied to say that he should explore the interesting issues raised by the right-wing ownership of The Politico, this is what he said:

Of course, big corporations that own media outlets have their own interests, so a key question is whether a newsroom

is truly independent.

I'm sure we'll be seeing that big Politico expose from him any day now - like right around never.

Glenn, are you sure Elliot Abrams is a convicted felon?

His Wikipedia entry states that he made a deal and was never even indicted on any felony counts.

You're right. I changed that. It was a mistake. Thanks.

First, Conrad Black. "Neoconservative"? I guess that makes Congressman Jefferson part of the "Democratic leadership."

If the person who founded, funded and owned The New York Sun is not a "neoconservative," who is?

And there must be some reason why his most ardent defenders are neocons -- such as David Frum, his father-in-law, Mark Steyn. What might that reason be?

There are some people for whom the label "neoconservative" is debatable. Conrad Black is most assuredly not one of them.