without question, one of your best stips EVER! thank you, berkeley.

happy new year everyone!

I actually used an airfone on a flight in 1991; I was flying home from college to surprise my mom on Thanksgiving. Denver was badly backed up and we weren't allowed to land for some time, resulting in me missing my connecting flight.

I had to let my buddy know that I wouldn't be arriving as scheduled as he would very likely be leaving within the hour to pick me up at my destination in Spokane.

Saved a lot of hassle, to be sure. Plus, it was 1991, and I was so much younger then--I was thrilled to have an excuse. Crazy, but it was just like talking on the phone!

Joan,

By and large I agree that it was a very solid performance by all three candidates. I couldn't help thinking that--finally!--the grown-ups were in charge. Not just that the three contenders were respectful and serious, but that NBC's moderators ALLOWED them to be respectful and serious. A breath of fresh air for sure. And, I thought at the time, a fine, fine omen for future coverage.

Silly, silly me! Joan, you may have logic and integrity on your side, but you--even when you're live with him--don't speak NEARLY AS LOUDLY AS CHRIS MATTHEWS!

How many Americans actually watched this two hour policy discussion? How many will know how serious and thoughtful ALL 3 Dems were? Matthews has his bully-pulpit and his unimpeachable opinion that Hillary was already standing at the podium in Denver--and anyone else who disagrees be damned! He's a modern-day John McLoughlin, and he's held up as an ANCHOR for chrissakes!

I adore Olberman, but I can't sit through Matthews' tripe just to hear a scant, few seconds of reason. I anxiously await my morning paper (if my west coast rag even has coverage by then) and the networks and NPR's approach to the topic. Sadly, I fear that even though the debate was anything but more of the same, the story the MSM will tell in the morning will be exactly more of the same.

And I also fear that the voters most in need of a sincere look at the candidates are those least likely to seek out alternative sources. I hope I'm wrong.

Thank you Mr. Rosen for your analysis. Most of your assessments resonate with me, but I feel you overlooked the most important thing. Perhaps this is because you are relishing your own detachment from The Media as they do theirs from the campaigns?

To wit: The Media lacks a mind for sure, but I believe it does not lack a conscience. The Media's conscience is you and it is me (indeed you prove this via your essay, and I through this letter; both appearing in the public square via a media outlet). We act upon The Media as engaged citizens by telling our media outlets our opinions and our expectations. More importantly, as engaged citizens we act upon our media by communicating with our elected officials insisting upon enforcement of existing FCC regulations requiring broadcasters to function in the public interest. Period. Call, email, write--we must perform our civic duty if our civilization is to evolve.

Yes, I know the cable channels aren't necessarily public, but aside from CNN all the cable news networks use the same correspondents, the same writers, the same anchors and the same footage as their broadcast sister channels. If held to account and required to again (or perhaps, finally!) work in the public interest through their news programming, it wouldn't make economic sense to only change the broadcast version; the cable version would have to follow suit (at the very least for 30 minutes or an hour each day--but probably more; the same 15 minutes of footage fills hours and hours each day).

I know this sounds terribly naive, and idealistic. That is precisely the problem. It's not naive; it's how our American civilization was built to work, and it's not working because we have abandoned our civic duty. If we the people retake the wheel, the ship of state (and of commerce and of medicine and of culture) will change course. If we stay below deck, heaven help us all!

Dear TheKiddy,

Groupthink is real. I think the best analogy for the press is a flock of swallows darting instantly and collectively in the same direction with no apparent rationale from the observer down below. I'm sure each of the correspondents and editors believe in their heart of hearts that they are making independent decisions, but the proof is in the pudding. Like Rosen points out, Jon Stewart shows this most clearly.