Glenn, thanks for responding to my comment. I certainly never said, nor did I mean that corporations are dictatorships. It is just that too much journalism criticism in the blogosphere focuses on individuals without looking at the surrounding ecosystem.

For example, criticizing John Solomon as a hack, as many do (perhaps not you) is rather beside the point, when he was a known hack when the Post hired him. And it seems they hired him precisely because he is a hack.

Yes, there are good reporters as you mention. Every organization has exceptional people who buck the system. The issue is why are these good reporters exceptional rather than the norm?

May I suggest that having a corporate media & wealthy individuals owning the media creates a right wing tilt toward how the news is presented

Many of the people who own media organizations also own other concerns. I don't think they micromanage to the degree you think. Quite the opposite, I think they manage by spreadsheet and don't look ENOUGH at the details of what their operations do. But by thinking of revenue/cost first, they end up shortchanging the newsrooms. The result is institutional laziness, which makes it easier for official talking points to permeate the coverage. (After all, one need only retype what was said as opposed to investigate - investigations cost money!)

The right-wing spin is a byproduct, not necessarily the goal.

Eric Alterman has documented that conservatives have been "working the refs" for decades.

How long has there been a serious and sustained push back from progressives?

I have a few observations about this exchange that I would like to share. First of all, congratulations Mr. Greenwald, your voice at Salon resonates much louder than previously as an independent blogger as this exchange with Mr. Harris shows. The "MSM" generally has a policy to treat the blogs (especially left-leaning ones) dismissively, as representative of a few pajama wearing radicals. As your exchange with Mr. Harris shows, parts of the MSM are taking you seriously.

Secondly, I want to thank Mr. Harris for engaging you in this discussion of Politico's role in journalism. I found your dialogue fascinating. I hope the discussion continues and moves to broader debate about the media as a whole as you have been frequently addressing in your posts as of late.

Thanks!

I'm sure that many people who spend one or more hours a day reading on the Web keep their bookmarks open so that they can easily navigate their favorite sites. I spend about two hours a day on the news and opinion sites. One in the morning and one in the evening. I don't watch TV news. I just don't. I can't afford to waste my time like that.

My daily political news reading includes Huffington, you, TPM, TPMmuckraker, Hullabaloo, Informed Comment, AMERICAblog, Think Progress, Crooks and Liars, Eschaton, Daily Kos, MyDD and Media Matters.

I use the Web to get the news and to understand what reasonable people think about the news. By news I mean facts. By "think" I mean intelligent and reasonable efforts to understand the facts.

Some of the sites I mentioned have occasional rants and spin cycles, but they also contain some of the best analysis I can find. Any they take the time to link to other sites, even competing sites with alternate view points. And that is as it should be.

That is what is really important here. Trying to improve the signal to noise ratio. Trying to create as much signal and as little noise as possible on those issues that effect us all. To help us understand what is going on so that we can make rational decisions, particularly where our democracy is concerned.

I think you do a great job of that and I hope you never feel compelled to change your methods. Many journalists have lost their way and need an example of what journalism is really for. You know what journalism is for. You said it,

My criticism of the press is based on my sincere belief that it is supposed to play a critical role -- but has abdicated its responsibility -- to serve as a watchdog over our government and to check abuses of power by political leaders.

That's why I read you. Because that's what you do.

That tortured locution gives Fred's game away: "right-doing" demands that the USAs act aggressively and conscientiously to improperly pursue Democrats.

-- SomeNYGuy

Not to nit-pick (and I have not read the article your citing here) but the wrong-doing would be firing your attorneys who are not pursuing a political agenda which involves bringing forward investigations that have little or no factual basis. The question here is the same (or at least very similar to) that asked after we launched a war based on WMDs in Irag that were never found: Are we starting with a conclusion (i.e. Democrats are fixing elections, Iraq has WMDs) and then looking for evidence that fits that conclusion? If that is the case the question should be "how much control should the president (and his subordinates) have to decide what investigations are pursued?" Where and how do we draw the line between pursuing priorities and pursuing what could easily be described as blatantly political goals?

As many have pointed out these firings are abnormal and are further evidence of this administrations disdain for restrictions of their power.

Glenn,

I agree completely that there are both institutional and individual factors involved in media bias and failure--as well as succeess. However, the institutional influences go even further than you have acknowledged. For example:

For one thing, not everyone who works for a company is a whore for the company willing to sacrifice their integrity to please their bosses. Some people who work at large corporations -- including media corporations -- retain their integrity and fight agianst currents they disagree with.

is quite true. But the individual reporter has no say over what assignments they are given, or even what stories are run in what form, and with what prominence.

It's a rare instance indeed where a Risen will have a book coming out that will force the publisher's hand to okay publishing a story that the publisher has been sitting on for over a year.