FYI--I've heard David Brock acknowledge your point more than once that the MSM is basically beholden to the party in power and is trying to maintain a high degree of access. That's some of it, but that's not ALL of it. If anything, they should be weighing against the party in power, thereby serving as a watchdog, but that would make too much damned sense. (I also find it interesting that you simply cannot prove your point about Democratic partisans being over-represented on talk shows during the Clinton administration.)

And your assertion that MM unfairly characterizes certain pundits as "progressive" or "Conservative is ridiculous given the you are doing the same thing. And I'm not saying Juan Williams is a leftist OR a rightist. What's important is that he's a typical MSM lapdog.

All that being said, let's get back to Glenn's initial question. I'd like to know why YOU think Brit Hume is taken seriously as a journalist.

"Sorta like in the late '90s, when Bill Clinton started launching cruise missiles every time Monica started talking."

You mean when he was firing missiles at Iraq and al Qaida in Afghanistan? One day you guys accuse him of wagging the dog, the next you accuse him of ignoring terrorists. Get your story straight one way or the other, okay? You'll seem more believable that way.

If you had actually bothered to READ Greenwald's entire post, or the letters--especially early on in the thread--you would understand why it's so important to write about Hume, and call him out on his bullshit. You're right to distrust Hume and his ilk, but lazy and irresponsible to dismiss him and argue that he should be ignored.

I've sort of made my peace with Bush. He is what he is. It's those who still support him whom I reserve my contempt for now. They actually have a choice in that matter.

Salon already puts a star next to letters that the editors feel make a particularly good point, or are noteworthy in some way.

I wonder if the editors can go a step further, and put a different symbol next to letters that make assertions and statements without ever offering any sort of proof or support for their claims. And also next to letters arguing points that obviously show that the letter writer did not read the article being written about. The letter from Kevin Murray is a n excellent example--a few strong statements that are wholly unsupported by any facts.

What usually transpires next is, other letter writers will see it and (1) ask for proof, which ultimately will be ignored, or (2) the "proof" turns into a change of subject, which leads to a diverted argument that goes way off point. I'm thinking if these types of letters could be identified, those of us in a time crunch could sift through the legitimate letters more quickly, and could spend out time arguing points that are actually relevant.

Maybe the symbol could be a Elephant bending over with gibberish type flowing out of it's ass?

Give me a minute and I'll think of a symbol for those who persist in straw man arguments....

Maybe Newsweek's "Michael" Isikoff was subliminally in Glenn's head? I generally like Isikoff's work, but I remember hearing him interviewed regarding the Plame case last summer, and he prefaced one of his comments with:

"Normally I'm not a 'conspiracy theorist,' but..."

And I remember thinking, "Why the hell not, Michael?" Weren't Woodward and Bernstein being conspiracy theorists with their Watergate reporting? And isn't the whole Plame affair one giant conspiracy, or at least an alleged conspiracy? All I ask of journalists is that they at least take conspiracies into consideration. If there's no proof, fine. But the Plame case in particular is nothing if not a conspiracy.

From Chapter 3. This quote explains A LOT!

"Deductive logic aside, authoritarians also have trouble deciding whether empirical evidence proves, or does not prove, something. They will often think some thoroughly ambiguous fact verifies something they already believe in. So if you tell them that archaeologists have discovered a fallen wall at ancient Jericho, they are more likely than most people to infer that this proves the Biblical story of Joshua and the horns is true--when the wall could have been knocked over by lots of other groups, or an earthquake, and be from an entirely different era (which it is).

High RWAs similarly think the fact that many religions in the world have accounts of a big flood proves that the story of Noah is true--when the accounts vary enormously, big floods hardly mean the story of the ark, etcetera also occurred, and the tale of Noah was likely adapted from an earlier Sumerian myth. They are sure that accounts of near-death experiences in which people say they traveled through a dark tunnel toward a Being of Light prove the teachings of Christianity are true--even though these stories also vary enormously, the "Being" is usually interpreted according to whom one expects to meet at death, and the vision could just be an hallucination produced by an oxygen-depleted brain.

Not only do authoritarian followers uncritically accept conclusions that support their religious beliefs, they have a problem with evidence in general…. They think that any time science cannot explain something, this proves mysterious supernatural forces are at work. "

That scathing diatribe really hurt. Us "liberal leftie moonbats" will have to get an economy-sized tube of aloe after that one. Ouch!