I'm wondering if you ever thought of being part of a think tank or even a university center (I think NYU has a communications/media center) that could put your work out more forcefully. Even good books are published so far after the fact that they lose a lot of their steam. But we need a major effort to deconstruct the MSM, show the effects of their biased reporting and hold journalists accountable--take away this cloak of being in some kind of private club and not being called on anything. Don't know how this would play out exactly...just thinking out loud. --Mikeyfil

I'm in total agreement, and believe our efforts need to concentrate more energy on outing and discrediting these cretin enablers. I will continue to harp on this, because Americans will never wake up and find a way to take their gov't back until they see that they are being fed nothing but bullshit that is designed to keep them fighting over distractions while their country is slowly ripped out from under their feet.

Forgive my awful grammar, all you word cops....;-))))

hehehe.

Glenn, I think it is high time you create an ongoing spotlight of this kind of journalistic lovefest and lack of integrity by creating your own "Top Ten" list of reporters who most embody everything a journalist should not be. I suggest this list be compiled on a quarterly basis, with a bullet point for each "winner" on the list briefly describing their latest example of incestuous behavior or willingness to be a tool of the gov't.

To do so would not be difficult, and I would think such a list would be picked up by other blogs, progressive sites, and media critics, further illuminating these poor and subservient excuses for journalists.

Also, and I would argue just as importantly, it would also be well worth reading to see a Top Ten list of journalists who you think are doing a good job in their reporting. A contrast of these lists would make crystal clear the differences (and how vast they really are) between good reporting, and reporting which only serves to propagandize the citizenry.

I for one would spread this list around to everyone I know in an effort to wake people up to the media stars who are the worst of the worst and don't merit even a first glance or read.

But is America an "empire"? I'm sure it makes some people feel good to think so, either as a source of pride or a means of criticism. But we don't actually conquer territory anymore (again, leaving the whole Iraq quagmire to the side). We pick sides in other regions' affairs, form (often disasterous) alliances, egregiously interfere, even invade and occupy, but we don't annex, at least not since we filled our apparent continental quota of 50 states. Officially, we don't covet our neighbor's landmass.

I would argue that we annex resources, or at the very least, access to them. No real question about that. And IMHO, the meaning of the word "empire" today has changed, at least in the minds of US leadership and the corporatocracy. It has become much more personal, involving the enrichment of particular industries and individuals within those industries, as well as political leaders who allow it to happen. The empire being created today is of massive wealth and power, concentrated ever-more precisely within a very small circle.

One only needs to ask "Who directly benefits from this" to see it.

This is the EXACT kind of putrid reporting that causes me to time-and-again call on an all-out attack on the media for their complicity and outright support of government propaganda.

Here is a link to email Carrie Johnson and ask her why her reporting is so unbelievably incompetent:

http://tinyurl.com/5jy3fb

Please email her and express your opinion of her reporting. I'm including my email to her, which is far and away too kind given her utter dereliction of duty. (Not that it will change the way these "hardened" flatfoots choose to do their work, but a flood of critical emails might make her a little more hesitant to send such horseshit to her editor the next time.)

Ms. Johnson,

I'm writing to ask for your thoughts about some very disturbing (and legitimate) questions being raised by the media's (and yours in particular) lack of thoughtful investigation and reporting of the Bruce Ivins case.

Some very detailed analysis on this case is being done by Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com and others, and it appears he is raising very important questions about the veracity of the case that you are not. I would like to understand why you, as a reporter on this case, are not asking these kinds of questions or following up on very apparent inconsistencies in this case.

It appears there is ample room for questioning the information that is being passed on to you by your sources, especially as it relates to the timeline/location of Ivins and the mailings of the Anthrax. I'm very skeptical about the FBI's case, their selective release of information, and their changing storyline. Yet you do not seem to be as interested in exploring these avenues? Can you help me understand why that is?

Here is an excerpt from Greenwald's post this morning regarding this case. The entire article can be found here:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

Thank you for taking the time to read my letter and respond.

Just watch how the MSM gets all up in the grille of anyone and everyone having anything at all to do with the breaking John Edwards affair story. Can you even imagine what they could do if they were all over the Bruce Ivins/Anthrax story like that?

Come on! You are seeing the core of the rotten apple in action.