I'm just catching up with yesterday's comments.

Here in 3 posts we have Gore Vidal quoted providing historical context, a troll's nonsense corrected, and a moving tribute to what Glenn's efforts have meant for some of us who are fed up with the status quo (but don't have the ability on our own to begin to change things).

It's what I love about this place. Thanks for sharing.

Glenn,

Molly Ivins' book Who let the Dogs In? was not published in 1987.

Perusing amazon.com and randomhouse.com, it appears to have been published in 2004.

I would guess that the excerpt you cited was from 1987 (I don't have my copy handy), and was then later included in the 2004 book.

Keep up the great work!

You have a very real talent for Limericks.

i>News coverage is just another form to content to drive ad impressions and revenue, no different from Lost or America's Next Top Model.

-- cestmoi123>

so molly ivans says, " nobody tells me what to write" is unworkable. if this because she had ethics?

[ondellete]: The clause you quoted is the beginning of what procedures need to be followed when surveilling someone who is foreign, not in the United States, when the other party is in the United States.

[some eedjit]: I don't see "other party is in the US" in (b). I understand the notwithstanding section (a) hierarchy, but what prevents the section(b) being taken literally? Without the "other party is in the US" verbiage, both sections refer only to non-USA persons outside the US making them virtually interchangeable.

Because:

105A(a) supersedes 105A(b). And 105A(a) covers the situation where the communication is between parties all foreign. Which leaves 105A(b) covering those situations where not all parties are foreign. Someone else cued the Jeopardy theme song a while back. Time's up, Sh**ter. What's your answer?

But nonetheless irrelevant, because 105A(a) says that foreign to foreign communications need no warrant, and says as well that this is true regardless, all other laws notwithstanding. Which makes Mr. Klein a liar or an eedjit like you (or a useful tool, like you as well).

I'd note that, as Ondolette so helpfully told you, the procedures to be followed include more than just obtaining court orders (or FISA 'warrants', more colloquially), and have to do also with what is to be done when conversations with persons in the U.S. end up being snooped, including minimisation procedures, retention policy, and disclosure of such.

I'd also note that FISA orders aren't hard to get ... when you have a real target of interest, you know, like maybe a suspected terrorist. Something the RW keeps conveniently forgetting....

Cheers,

to this post but, why, why why do these guys compromise their education, ethics and egos to enable an administration that care about none of these things. to journalists of another era, these guys would be akin to shootin' fish in a barrel.

wha's more, there is probably serious $$ to be made exposing bushco. but then, who would publish it?

Thanks, I'm flattered.

Perhaps you'll like one I wrote a while back about former AG Gonzales.

Alberto Gonzales Realizes Why People Would Assume That Bush's Nickname for Him Refers to the Weak Corleone Brother, but Would Like to Issue a Clarification on Its' True Origin.

We Have Similar Traits - I Will Say So;

We're Both Dumb and As Pliant As Playdoh.

But that Came from My Boss,

Who Sprayed Me with White Sauce;

Then Stepped Back and Exclaimed, "You're Al Fredo!"

Sorry to hear you've been sick! I can't think of a worse holiday to be ill than Thanksgiving. All that wonderful food to have to pass up. :-s

Hope you're feeling better and that you at least had enough energy to keep up with a little bit of what's been happening here. Glenn's kept it rockin' and rollin'.

No one would ever have known. :)

It's the aura.

Toot sweet. ;->

Time Tries Again

Very funny, very creative -- especially "inKleined". Excellent! (on p. 19).

Walter Pincus gets it exactly right:

"Well, that's objectivity if you think there are only two sides. And if you're not interested in the facts."

But, are reporters not interested because it isn't easy to get the facts, or are the facts just inconsistent with the story that the want to tell?

Salon is a niche product, and it focuses on that niche. Just as McDonalds doesn't try to sell pasta, Salon has chosen a market segment (delivering upper-income liberals to advertisers) where it felt it had less competition, and hence contracts for content that would attract the target demographic for which its advertisers are looking. This is no different than any other company choosing to specialize. Salon could certainly try to take on Fox News, but that's unlikely to be successful. So, Salon focuses (as the company states in its SEC filings) on "(1)providing original and provocative content on topics that the mainstream media overlook, and (2) filtering through the media chatter and clutter to help readers find the stories that matter."

There is an interesting chapter in there about the changing meaning of objectivity.

It's worth a read but my executive summary is that "objectivity" is not a goal but a *method* of transcending what Lipmann called the "accidental witness."

The idea that you have to quote exactly two sides and present only what people said, regardless of what they did, is a somewhat recent invention.

According to "The Elements of Journalism" verification is the heart of journalism. It's kind of funny and tragic to read and see that at least some people get it, but nobody really practices it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE

Jon Stewart wins, CNN cancels Crossfire

By Ken Fisher | Published: January 06, 2005 - 02:37PM CT

In the middle of October, Jon Stewart took his usual complaints about partisan hackery to his appearance on CNN's Crossfire (transcript here | streaming video here). From the beginning of the discussion, Stewart took aim at Crossfire and other media shows, saying (at first with a smile) that they "hurt America" by making politicians' lives easier by failing to "hold their feet to the fire." The gist of Stewart's complaint was that shows that were purportedly "hard" and "cutting" were really only theatrical performances of talking points and sensationalism. The incident is now famous, and little needs to be said about it. I'm following up that story because it was so popular when we ran it before.

Today CNN announced that they are nixing Crossfire, and dropping their relationship with one of the show's "commentators" (I use that word lightly), Tucker Carlson (who claims that he actually quit months ago). CNN's new President, Jonathan Klein, said that he agreed with much of Stewart's indictments against the media. So sayeth the New York Times:

Mr. Klein specifically cited the criticism that the comedian Jon Stewart leveled at "Crossfire" when he was a guest on the program during the presidential campaign. Mr. Stewart said that ranting partisan political shows on cable were "hurting America." Mr. Klein said last night, "I agree wholeheartedly with Jon Stewart's overall premise." He said he believed that especially after the terror attacks on 9/11, viewers are interested in information, not opinion.

Now, few would think that Stewart is the cause for the demise of Crossfire, but his complaints are most certainly a symptom of the media's unwillingness to throw punches. Whether it's Swift Boat Veterans for Truth or forged National Guard documents, too much time is spent discussing discussions about "news." Then, what becomes news are the discussions themselves, and the journalists don't spend enough time asking whether or not any of this garbage is actually correct, or engaging in real debate. I commend CNN for dumping the likes of Crossfire, but they, like most major media outlets, have a long way to go before the thinking public truly respects them again.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050106-4509.html