Thanks. A suggestion: Let Sens Clinton and Obama submit to an hour long interview with Jeremy Paxman. My guess is that they will have to be taken to an intensive care unit at the end of the session. It would be good for Salon to provide a full clip of Paxman interviewing Tony Blair: the fireworks was simply outstanding, and the women in the audience razzed good old Tony.

Much of the stuff on Tucker, Hardball and Morning Joe can be classified as crap: the mutual adoring society includes Pitchfork Pat, Eugene Robinson, Howard - the slimy smile - Fineman and other members of the MSNBC stable. At the end of each day all that is left in that stable is horse manure.Lots of it.

Is it news that someone passionate about issues like genocide makes an off-hand comment about how she feels about Hillary Clinton? Come on boys and girls. Has anyone written a story about her reasons for supporting Obama? Has she been interviewed on American TV about her work and why she has been working against Hillary? No! she expresses her personal feelings about Hillary and its international news!! And, she can now no longer work to influence national policy on genocide. How pathetic! While I usually read Glenn with great enthusiasm I think he's way off on this one. I'd love to publically declare what I think of Hillary but who cares what I think. And who should care what a volunteer for Obama thinks of Hillary. Or what a volunteer of Hillary thinks of Obama for that matter.

Over at Swampland last week, Ana Marie Cox was defending herself against commenter outrage over her attendance at John McCain's Sedona barbecue. Leave aside that AMC is not a "journalist" per se -- more or less a blogger who leveled up -- but listen to her defense

If someone was writing a profile of Steve Jobs, and he invited you over for dinner, a smart reporter would jump at the chance to see their subject in a relaxed atmosphere, in an environment completely unlike where he's typically interviewed. He may not say anything newsworthy, or he may bite the head off a live chicken. You can't control that part, but you can be there to see it happen. And you might learn something.

An odd example but let me expand: if Jobs had bitten the head off that chicken it would most likely have gone unreported, or laughed off as "Mr. Jobs' unorthodox dietary choices."

The (theoretical) value of somehow learning something in a social milieu is completely outweighed by the countervailing danger that the reporter will allow personal feelings to minimise or eliminate their necessary adversarial role.

This is obvious and really requires no comment. Some have (as Cox seems to have done) totally talked themselves out of this reality, and I do believe some know what they're doing and are just ignoring it so they can enjoy the "ribs" (here a metaphor for the good feelings of chummy closeness to power and its glamour).

Glenn says, correctly in my view, that "it won't change and the only real hope is to develop alternatives to it." My question (for everyone here) is what meaningful alternatives could there be? Blogs are nice, but we'll only ever reach a small percentage of the populace.

How does one create a new journalism?

Greenwald: "I'll tell you who it is, as a reward for those who have made it this far in comments -- Jake Tapper of ABC."

In-teresting. And sadly, very predictable--if it wasn't King, then it was someone like him. And Tapper is very much like him.

Thanks, Mr. Greenwald, for the snausage.

Some point to media corruption as originating in corporatism. Others a collusion with the exectuive branch. The two together highlight the strong resemblance to facism.

The above may be true, but your post got me to thinking about how to describe what "corruption" actually is. I think that media corruption is basically a collective misjudgement regarding where their true power resides. The fact that Ms. Power went from the fast track to the president's National Security Advisor post to sitting on the sideline bench (all within a few hours) shows a glimpse of the true power of the newsmedia. That power is in independence. But the bulk of our national media have confused access with power. The nature of media corruption may not lie in some conspiratorial move to the dark side, but rather just a poor decision regarding where their own true interests are.

Ditto with Congress.

you wrote earlier this week admonishing reporters for their obsessive focus on the politics of personal destruction instead of focusing on the issues? What does Samantha Power saying Hillary Clinton is a "monster" have to do with the presidential campaign?

Indeed the Clinton campaign used this "insult" to further cast Hillary Clinton as a martyr and demanded the resignation of Power, a woman who is recognized as one of the world's experts on genocide and international law. And this is something you're applauding - because the journalist for the Scotsman was "standing up" to Power by printing an off-handed remark?

No points for consistency here Glenn. How disappointing.

And EVERY reporter handles it based on circumstances, the importance of the quote and the parenthetical nature of the "off the record" designation.

At some point during the WaPost's Watergate coverage, some Nixon cabinet official took Ben Bradley to dinner to threaten the newspaper over its coverage of the scandal. The WaPo printed the threats. Clearly, WaPo's top reporter (an editor) had a difference of opinion with his "source" about what was "off the record." White House coverage over the past eight years would probably be much more fascinating and engaging if newsroom managers had adopted the Bradley standard for handling "off the record" phone calls from the White House.

You are correct about the coverage, especially re: the guests on the shows on MSNBC - the guests have obviously picked their candidates and quite frankly, they could be caught actually shooting someone, on camera and the talking heads would cheerfully explain why this is all someone else's fault and why it's all intended to get the candidate off-message. But the voters shouldn't be fooled. Ugh. And this is what passes for political coverage in this nation.

I can just imagine what Olbermann would have thought if one of Bush's advisors had tried to say something was "off the record" and the reporter had complied after a gaffe like this - and it had somehow gotten out. I wonder what some of the people around here who believe it was wrong to print it would have said then. I think Tucker's reaction would have been the same, though.