I can't and won't argue with a thing you said in your article. I struggled through the article because I had focused on Mr. Carlson's sentence before your highlighting. A sentence that you mentioned last. I had seen Mr. Paxton's interview of Mr. Bolton before as well as numerous other interviews performed by British journalists. It has always struck me British journalists were substantially more professional than their American counterparts. I kept wondering if you would suggest that the American media should compare and contrast themselves to the media in other countries that have a vigorous media before they start claiming that their standards are so much higher than other's.

By way of contrast, I have been interviewed exactly once in my life. I was sitting on my suitcase in a very crowed Huston Station in London, completely fried from a trip that had started in St. Louis that still had miles and miles to go when I was approached by a young woman of about 25 and an older man who looked to be in his early 50s. They were collecting public reaction to something that the Chief of Police in Manchester had said. There were two aspects of this that were interesting. First, after the preliminaries of would I agree to be interviewed etc., they said, "Now don't tell us anything you don't want us to publish." The second came after the interview was over when they were collecting information about me. How old are you? I admitted to being 36. (this is the hilarious part) They turned and looked at each other and said, simultaneously, she: You see, I told you he was old; he: You see, I told you he was young. I said, "What the hell is going on?" That's when they explained the breadth of demographics that they wanted (I qualified as middle aged @ 36 apparently). And the breadth of the spread was impressive because it wasn't just sliced just by age. They had over two dozen interviews so that they could ultimately publish about a half a dozen. All this just for a public reaction story.

I seriously doubt that our journalists expend such care in getting differing points of view when preparing their articles.

According to scientific studies, the only think scarier to a racist white liberal or republican than an african american man who has a very dark skin, is an african american man who has a very dark skin and who is wearing a large clock around his neck with the correct time displayed.

Besides, I like Public Enemy and this country needs more Flava.

This interview (at the link) of Adam Nagourney covers that episode in detail.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: And I'm Brooke Gladstone. In politics and journalism -- and in political journalism --there are rules. And according to a frustrated member of the John Kerry for President Campaign, New York Times chief political correspondent Adam Nagourney breaks them. It seems the Kerry campaign made some not-for-attribution comments about competitor Howard Dean's anti-war stance, calling it "politically-motivated." Nagourney printed the comment, but also printed the source, spurring Kerry operative Stephanie Cutter to fire off indignant e-mails and drop Nagourney from her mailing list. Adam Nagourney joins me on the line from his office at the New York Times. Adam, welcome to the show.

http://tinyurl.com/2khddm

This item was posted by Ana Marie Cox on Time’s Swampland yesterday. I don’t know the context under which Talev asked her question but it sure sounds sycophanty as does Cox’s comments:

“I listened to this one while driving, so please excuse the absence of notes and the failure to ask a question. In any case, the most outstanding feature of this call, by my lights, was how the reporter (Margaret Talev, McClatchy) introduced her question with, "I'm sorry, this is about policy." Sigh. It's not her fault, it's just what we've come to. I'll buy the next round, Margaret.

It was, of course, the most substantive question they got: She asked, given what Samantha Power has said about Iraq, and the admission of Clinton supporter Gen. Jack Kean that Clinton would not "act irresponsibly and issue orders to conduct an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, regardless of the consequences, and squander the gains that have been made," wasn't it just more honest to leave yourself "wiggle room" when it comes to military decision that are nearly a year away? I couldn't quite hear their response as well as the question, but it sort of sounded like their answer was that Obama is committed to leaving Iraq... which is a way of leaving one wiggle room, I suppose...”

Glenn, it might be "petty and vindictive", but I am seriously hoping someday to read the OFF THE RECORD email you mentioned. Would it happen to be from a well-coiffed journa-lite-ist with intials JK? If it someday suits your purpose to blog on it, I am sure it would prove amusing.

Nice article highlighting the values of our free press.

A good summary, very good. I would add that journalism done properly is, or should be, one of the least ego-gratifying professions imaginable. A journalist is almost always responsible for a piece of the story, not the whole, no matter how much, or how little, he or she knows or can surmise about contexts, influences, spin, motives, etc.

This sort of thing is hard on smart people, yet journalism can't be done by stupid people. It's a genuine paradox. The only honest way out of that paradox, it seems to me, is for journalists to think of what they do as a public service. It's up to us, the audience, not the reporter, to put the pieces together. This is necessary for the greater good, even it means that the reporter cannot sign his work the way Picasso could sign a painting. Pulitzer prizes aside, the way to honor journalists is to honor journalism. Would that we had more frequent reasons to do so.

The fact that you think you're well familiarized with X doesn't mean that X isn't worth discussing. There are other people besides you.

Where exactly did I say the topic wasn't worth discussing or that the Universe revolves around me?

Nowhere.

So I don't know what (or who) your response is referring to. It ain't me or what I wrote.

The fact that the American Big Media is vapid, decadent and corrupt and there are multitudinous examples thereof is and has been -- as I wrote -- Topic #1 or #2 (or at least in the top ten) on the Internets for decades. Obviously it's worth discussing or nobody would discuss it. Eh? Self-evident.

The point, which you elide, is that despite all the hyperventilation and discussion about it, the Big Media in this country doesn't get any better. It is institutionally the way it is, and no amount of rattling its cage makes any difference.

What would be news, I think, is if oh, say, Tim Russert got on the tube and issued a major mea culpa and followed it up by resigning from NBC is disgrace, took to wearing sackcloth and ashes, and gave all his money away to the poor.

But it isn't going to happen.

When Matthews issues a defense of trash-talking Hillary and that is somehow accepted as an "apology" throughout the haute blogmonde, and he is instantly "forgiven," then symbiosis can be presumed. There's nothing really wrong with that, nor is there anything wrong with pointing it out. But it can sure make some people uncomfortable.

Tucker "unintentionally" reveals..? is there any evidence he didn't know what he was saying, or that he didn't mean to say what he did? After Russert made his revelation in court -- and the heavens didn't open and fire did not rain down upon his head -- isn't it possible that Russert's statement (of Truth) then became the standard line and conventional wisdom, no need to hide it, it's just the way things are. And Tucker knew precisely what he was saying, meant to say it, and has no regrets?

Think maybe it could be?

I do.