I saw Ms. Power on Irish television news last evening when she was in Belfast, apparently promoting her book on the assassinated diplomat, De Mello. She was extremely flustered when asked about her "monster" aside on Hillary Clinton and, quite honestly, I felt she'd "lost the plot" completely as she told the reporter how much she admired HRC, the way in which the candidate had broken "through the glass ceiling" etc. etc. Her effusiveness was embarrassing but she's clearly under strain. We have an expression here "You should never send a boy to do a man's job" and that sums up her situation. As someone of my own nationality (although I presume she is naturalised American) Samantha Power might be expected to bring out chauvinism in me but she most certainly does not. She's not up to the job although I'm sure that she's perfectly fine in her own Harvard hothouse. To think that Samantha was Obama's senior adviser on foreign policy (that's the way she was presented here and in the UK) is quite frightening. She means well, I'm sure, but she has no "cop-on". She should also have been much more aware of her audience as, for instance, she stated using the four-letter Anglo-Saxon word "We effed up in Iowa". Yes, that word is used mindlessly and extensively but is not a part of political discourse in the British Isles and long may that situation continue.

I think Samantha Power is quixotic, in the best sense of the word, and has been overwhelmed by Realpolitik. Let's see, Canada and Scotland have already become embroiled in the Obama campaign and this involves only two advisers. That's quite good for starters!

During the equal-time era, television was a bit braver because there was the DEMAND of presenting different sides. Now, they cower at the wrath of the right wing and just about everybody else who threaten to complain to sponsors etc.

The "guests" and the faux conflicts are the novelty that keep views coming back ... which provide the audience ... which sells the ad space ... etc. So, they need a careful mix of "controversy" and "conflict" ... but, heaven forbid, too much.

There are so few outlets for actual "interviews" as opposed to a 5-10-15 minute media opportunity which we see on air and in print when someone wants to sell something.

Charlie Rose offers long-form ... Steve Colbert, Jon Stewart and Bill Mahr offer longer than most. I remember when authors actually appeared on the Tonight Show and Dick Cavett and Merv Griffith. I must admit I don't know what format and length of segments are available on talk radio.

Mike Wallace, in his day, was considered very tough and I recall his reptuation was that he made his subjects squirm, but the exposure that CBS and Mike Wallace gave them apparently was worth it.

Again, as far as I can tell, America is in deep denial and our namby-pamby status qua supporting media, I suspect, is a SYMPTOM rather than a cause ... right up there with corporations sacrificing everything including their products, customers and communities to reward their stockholders.

It's morning in America ...

I was thinking along the lines of what an individual can do to help establish an alternative journalism. First--Goodman's program, in terms of items covered and tone of coverage, provides a unique alternative product. It is simply different from anything else out there in TV-land. Second, her program regularly puts on journalists and others that you will see no where else. These are the alternative journalists that you wish to support and promote. A showcase of alternative journalism, if you will. Third, she's on TV--television is the place to be, for better and worse. Fourth, getting a program on your local PBS station is actually doable. It is not a theoretical exercise nor is it an endless stream of singing to one's own choir. It is a local, doable, concrete action that would do a world of good in one's own community.

Or put it this way, only journalists are defending the leak -- the problem I would say is that Glen Greenwald identifies too much with Ms. Peev and not enough with Ms. Power. More introspection, less projection.

The really really revealing set of words Ms. Power used is "we fucked up" at the very beginning of the quoted remarks. To be blunt there is no way that someone giving an interview that they understood was for verbatim quotation would have opened with the profanity in question -- or any profanity at all. The phrase illustrates that she though she was speaking to a reporter in a manner that was not a for the record interview -- one way or another. The bottom line is that she conned someone into thinking something was not on the record .. if it was intended to be "on the record" we by now would have had a detailed statement of the circumstances.

GG wants to position himself as backing investigative hard hitting journalism, but the reality is much of that depends of confidential background sources. Individuals on the inside who are willing to explain things, point journos to secrets hiding in plain sight, tell them where to look for less obvious facts, explain where to find two-to-add-to-two. Only a journalist consumed with vanity would deny the importance of such briefings.

Ms Peev will, nor her newspaper group never be trusted to get this sort of information again (her editors are also to blame), sadly Glenn Greenwald's defence has also put himself in a position where only a fool on the inside would trust him as well. Long term, that will undermine his reporting and maybe even that of Salon. Personally, if asked by someone "should I talk to Glenn Greenwald?" I would now have to say "are you fucking joking!" All very sad ...

Wow, you are precious.

Death, in an alternate reality, says something like "I've been flat-out all day. Dick Cheney went hunting and accidentally shot Antonin Scalia. The bullet went right through him, Karl Rove, and Tucker Carlson."

Though I'm hardly a fan of his, I was curious as to why Carlson was included in that corrupt group. Now I get it. (And no, I'm not advocating for their deaths).