Could it be that this article had something to do with Carlson's being "out" at MSNBC? At least that's what I just read in the MSM. If this is true, I do feel a bit sorry for him. One honest slip of the tongue and you're out. No doubt they'll replace him with another hack who will carry on with business as usual.

John Powers, that is, whose book, Sore Winners, is dead-on important as it relates to this hopefully emerging media strand. He devotes a substantial, pithy chapter to media, from which a couple of snippets:

" . . . , they are at bottom deeply conservative. Because the system works for them, they have a vested interest in keeping things essentially the same. Well-off and well-connected, they don't feel personally threatened or outraged by government giveaways to corporations or tax breaks for the wealthy and the way workers are treated in factories and service jobs that nothing in their experience has made real to them. On the contrary, they are far more likely to feel on the same social level as the politicians and businessmaen they cover . . . And this is general throughout mainstream journalism. whose news coverages reflect its cosseted practitioners' sense of privelege." And, citing John Leonard, ". . . political reporters hang out with politicians, critics are friends with those they review, and the whole media universe forms one large, self-reinforcing chorus line of opinions and alliances that set the limits of acceptable thinking."

Given the theme at hand, the good news is that we have this medium (for the moment); the bad news is that it is desperately needed and unknown by so many who could perhaps surmount the relentless dumbing down by corporatist media.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/09/msnbc-cancels-tucker-carl_n_90648.html

I suppose this qualifies as good news.

People would have spent more time talking about the dirty names Nixon called his enemies instead of the high crimes and misdemeanors that he plotted.

...the American people would not have ever found out about it! The American media has no backbone, has traded off what little integrity remained in the profession in order to get spoon-fed comments by elitists who gladly give them a smile and use them with their permission, and can't wait for the next "ratings crisis" to hit.

Iraq never would've happened if the American media had done its job and questioned the intelligence. But, noooooooo. They couldn't wait to get "embedded" for the 2 weeks drive to Bagdad! They are as much of the problem as they are a solution.

I never knew that Tucker Carlson, of all people, cared so much about journalism in general, and the practice of journalism specifically. He's not a journalist anyway, is he? See? That's part of the problem here in America: People who are NOT journalists are being paid to act like one; the White House puts out imaginary press releases giving the impression they are news reports, and various governmental departments stage press conferences with employees acting the part of reporters asking questions!

The real journalists should've been offended all to hell and back at how journalism, the profession, has deteriorated in our country. Instead, they just sit around and wonder how they can get paid as much as Katie Couric.

The writer does not fully understand how journalism works. When a print journalist is standing there with his or her notebook open, pen in hand, it is to be assumed that everything said is on the record (unless otherwise agreed upon). Russert, on the other hand, is not really a news-gathering reporter. He is someone who interviews people, often in a tough manner, on television. So it is hardly some sort of sychophantic climbdown for him to consider his telephone conversations to be off the record or purely for background. His Meet-the-Press stuff, obviously, is on the record. The fact that Lewis Libby was convicted of a Kafkaesque "crime" of misremembering off-the-record conversations with multiple journalists years after the fact refutes the main point of the story, rather than supports it. Tucker Carlson, again, is not really a journalist, certainly not in the traditional print sense. He is an on-air personality. In his comments referred to in this article he is clearly clueless about the role of journalism. He should in no way be considered emblematic of professional journalists today. The reporter for The Scotsman did things just right -- running the full quote, with Powers's admonition that it was "off the record," even though no such ground rule had been established.

it's the same reason car magazines are reluctant to pan any car no matter how bad, stereo magazines are enthusiastic about every new gadget, computer mags are excited about every new development, etc. it's not that they might lose advertising revenue, it's the loss of access that's the real threat. if you tell the public that the all-new XYZ is a total dud, you stand a very real risk of getting cut off from the press releases, leaked photos, off the record interviews, test drives, press junkets, etc. etc. and you end up writing your articles 6 months after everybody else, which doesn't sell magazines.

in this country, where our view of politics is just another product to be consumed, the same thing holds. we don't want an in-depth piece on how McCain's health plan and Clinton's and Obama's all compare and how they relate to what's been tried and what experts think that took two weeks to research and write; we want to know what clever quip McCain said at breakfast this morning, and we want to know it now! if you get thrown out of the group privileged with the insider info, you're now part of the fringe media. oddly, Britain and even Canada have managed to largely dodge this perversion, so far.

These "Somebody"s aren't "Nobody"s. One is an adviser to Barack Obama on foreign policy and the object of calumny was another woman who just happens to be the first female candiate for the Presidency of the United States. There's a certain grim irony in the fact that the foreign policy adviser, Samantha Power, fell into the slurry-pit (pardon, agricultural metaphor) when she ventured into foreign territory. You may insist that "monster" is an innocuous word which is used in certain circles but you cannot maintain that insularity in the global village, particularly in the English-speaking part of it and may I remind you that Americans do not control the language. We've had more than enough of your "extraordinary rendition", sanitised phraseology for kidnapping and possibly worse as suspected terrorists are grabbed all over the world and disappear into the abyss.

Your excuse that Samantha Power uttered the word "monster" in a moment of pique is laughable. You;d think that she was in the scool playground and another kid had tugged her pigtails. Repeating the famous (and criticised) headline from "The Sun"(trashy UK newspaper) isn't too smart either. The "Gotcha" headline was the triumphalist one that hailed the sinking of the Argentinian ship "Belgrano" by the British during the Falklands War when Margaret Thatcher - Ronald Reagan's pal - was British Prime Minister. Many young Argentinians died on that ship and the reasons for attacking the vessel are very suspect. So no, Steve D., it was not a Gotcha moment for the young journalist working for "The Scotsman". She was merely doing her job in "the warts and all" way that professional political writers are supposed to do. She was writing for "The Scotsman" readership but if Drudge and others want to prowl the international print media and serve it up in the USA it is most unfair of you to blame Gerri Peev. "A shut mouth catches no flies" but if Samantha Power chose to get involved in politics she has to talk to the media. Unfortunately, she showed very poor judgment when she left her own comfort zone and that is her own fault.