The market would work great if people weren't such idiots.

OK... maybe that isn't Mona's position but it's a reasonable distillation of mine.

Protecting people from themselves impairs freedom.

Giving them what they want impairs intelligence.

No one ever said it would be easy!

That is the consensus view of Beltway journalists. No matter how many nakedly partisan attacks Brit Hume launches -- and he's been doing that for years -- he is still to be considered a perfectly objective and respective journalist, a "news anchor."

This is what set them after Dan Rather. He was doing his job as a journalist. Hume's job is as an attack dog.

http://www.ratherbiased.com/transcript.htm

just curious, did you get that e-mail I sent you?

Also, do you have any links handy to a comment where you explain in detail the Versailles press metaphor? I plan on using that in something I'm going to write.

I did that Olbermann's audience share is growing, and I expect it will continue. Nice to see the numbers, though.

And wouldn't you rather that both networks set themselves apart from Fox, rather than adopt that model?

Of course I would, but I suspect that they (the BigMediaGuys) look only at the bottom line when they are considering market factors.

As for Olbermann, he's become such a star that he can actually lead and set a new standard, one that doesn't require him to be feuding with the likes of O'Reilly, in order to increase ratings.

All KO has to do is keep telling the Truth. Very compelling.

Clearly, any network programming whiz that can't read the trends, and persists in trying to make MSGOP or CNN Fox News Lite, doesn't understand the market. Olbermann beats every show on MSNBC and most of them on other networks.

Last night on 60 minutes Lou Dobbs was interviewed by Lesley Stahl. Ms Stahl questioned Dobbs about his journalistic integrity. (What a laugh coming from her). She repeated the Fox news canard verbatim “where is the fair and balanced” in your reporting she asked. As long as beltway media insist on faux “fair and balanced” the truth is given the same weight and consideration that is given to even the most outlandish lies. BS on “fair and balanced” give me the truth.

..."faux-balanced?"

Succinct, no?

"Of course I would, but I suspect that they (the BigMediaGuys) look only at the bottom line when they are considering market factors."

Cable News depts. are actually big money makers now, but precisely because the news depts. do real news anymore.

Tiberius says "Britt Hume was a journalist when keith was still dreaming of being a sportscaster." This might be true but really has nothing to with Greenwald's argument. Greenwald is talking about what Hume is now. Unfortunately, if he was a journalist he has become a walking, breathing talking point spouter. The question that needs to be asked when discussing the merits of a "journalist" is whether he/she are making the effort to speak the truth. Olbermann attempts and is very successful at speaking the truth. The closest Hume and O'Reilly come to the truth are their attempts to spin it.

Mona:

"News" is now everywhere on cable, 24/7, and must be entertaining to keep ratings. That is only part of the explanation, but it is a significant part. As libertarian as I am and allergic to such accusations, I'd almost call it a market failure.

It's really simple Mona: the market is a wonderful servant, but a terrible master.

You want better bridges, you study bridge failure, to learn how to avoid it. You want better markets, you study market failure, to learn how to avoid it. Folks like you are actually the enemies of successful markets.

Of course, this common-sense observation drives a stake through the heart of your beloved libertarianism. But those are the breaks.

Olbermann's real journalistic crime is that he is too critical of powerful government officials... What turns a "journalist" into an ideologue these days is excess criticism of the prevailing Beltway power structure and its most revered and important figures. That -- and only that -- is what distinguishes Olbermann from those considered to be "real journalists."... The only thing one can [do] to lose one's status as a "journalist" is to cease acting in defense of that system and, instead, to criticize it too severely, too stridently, too disrespectfully.

Yep. In the newsmedia it's OK to kick the men who are down, but only the men who are down. That's the sum total of it. Having said that, I think Olbermann's schtick is more opinion commentary than straight newsreading. However, who else might "balance" Hume as a debate moderator? The "Olbermann-esque" precise equivalent to Brit Hume no longer exists among high profile TV news anchors. Rather was subjected to a High Soviet-style ritual purge some time ago. The organizers of this debate might have tried to ask him to join Hume as moderator, but the uproar would have begun before the debate, and weaker candidates might have used him as an excuse to pull out. Rather has been formally kicked out of the in-group, you see. There are no outspokenly liberal equivalents to Hume available to tap for this.

This expectation that candidates deserve soft-pedaling, softball-lobbing moderators is mad to begin with. Our presidential candidates would be better if they were subjected to the sort of withering debate that British Prime Ministers endure in Parliament. If they had to defend their views on their feet, in public, on a regular basis, those views would either change or become better understood.
How the hell can it be hoped that candidates can defend America's interests if they can't defend themselves in such a forum? We should expect candidates to field hardballs from a panel that includes people who know how to ask questions. Would that Oriana Fallaci were still alive. She could yank off her chador and make these blue-suited imams talk sense.

"Afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted"

has long been forgotten by most journalists.