and everything else as well. I'm not a Dubliner, don't live in Dublin but perhaps I know more about your golden girl than you do. That snide little "resent" didn't escape me either. I've no idea why I'm supposed to resent someone who's made a complete "eejit" of herself in public. What's more, she's no Martin Luther who had the courage not to recant when he refused to recant at Wittenberg: "Here I stand, I can do no other". She was back-tracking like mad last evening and I, in my quaint way, would have more respect for her if she'd not been quite so gushing about the virtues of Hillary Clinton. I admire moral courage and that's why I admire Jeremy Paxman. You seem to have a "thing" about Samantha Power so that if I write anything that reflects adversely on the Obama campaign you're out taking pot-shots at me, attempting to categorise me from within the confines of your own acquaintances and curling your lip in derision.

I must admit that I didn't know that Samantha had such a huge influence on bringing the blood-bath in Rwanda to an end, that this former French colony was so amenable to the persuasiveness of a Harvard professor that the Hutus and the Tutsis offered each other the olive branch at her behest. I'm wondering now if she could pour oil on troubled waters in Kenya instead of coming over here to increase the sale of her book. Ireland is a very small country and I was told two weeks ago that Samantha's mother was called Delaney and her grandfather was a senior police officer. This came up in casual conversation but it seems to me that you and Samantha, and your like, would fit into the Dublin 4 set far better than I would. In your last futile attempt to quell me, you mentioned "latte liberals", apropos nothing at all, but you are easily identified as a member of "the chattering class".

Incidentally, Carol Coleman, the Irishwoman shown on Youtube quizzing President Bush, is more my type of person.

Glenn,

Thanks for this enlightening story. I watched the Carlson "interview" of Peev last night and was surprised at the hostility he showed toward her. She seemed taken aback by the attack (hey, I rhymed!), too. I was more surprised when Davis applauded Carlson's ambush of Peev. Then, I was even more surprised to hear that "journalists" would make such deals with the subjects of their investigations.

What you said about Tim "bulldog" Russert was really eye-opening. I had always thought Russert was hard core, but I guess he's just a lapdog like Carlson. I'm not a journalist, just a satirist, so I am largely ignorant of journalistic standards. Personally, I'll take Peev's over Carlson's any day.

If you really want something "off the record," don't say it, but that's just between you and me, right Glenn?

You say:

"It was inappropriate for Ms. Power to share her personal opinions... on the record OR off the record ... to the extent that she cannot separate her "new book tour" from her role as "advisor to Barack Obama and campaign" ... period. Sh damaged her credibility and the Obama campaign."

Really. The only thing that got her into trouble was the language she used. Do you really think that reporters should have no idea of the personality of the people they report on .. what they are liked when the makeup is off, when they are relaxed, not parsing every word. If that was really so everything would be like a shine celebrity on a chat show, trying to make nice.

Context is important -- knowing what someone is really like mattersfor journalists. I find it appalling to agree with Tucker Carlson, but Ms. Peev did something she should not have done, for a brief moment of glory, which she is milking for all it is worth right now.

To fling back Glen Greenwalds' comment that only Obama backers are upset ... do you really think that the Hillary campaign would want "off the record" quotes from it on Obama quoted verbatim?

My point is simple, the magic words "this is off the record is it?" asked as a question indicates that someone thought they were off the record and then wondered, is that clear. But it is possible for context to indicate that something is off the record.

Lets take an extreme example .. suppose you had a lover, a journalist, and in some post-prandial pillow talk you discussed your day, what you thought about say your boss, or your bosses boss -- have you a right to expect that to be "off the record?" or should it be published. It seems to me that Glenn Greenwald and you think ... well he, she, it should have known, so publish and be damned, or celibate I suppose.

I have watched good journalists, top journalists, not the current pusaliminous crop cultivate relationships with lawyers, diplomats and public officials, drink with them in bars from Doheney & Nesbits to the University Club in DC, eat dinner in their homes, etc. etc. Along the way I have seen scandal after scandal break, I know that the journalists were helped and pointed to those stories through those friendships ... and I have seen people get "burned" and watched story after story dry up.

This situation is about balance -- calling Hillary a monster was a BFD (big fucking deal) statement -- blowing it up is a big deal -- it means that lots of people will go quiet, on the US attorneys scandal, on who is doing what on FISA, on Siegelman, on all sorts of topics.

We may think that Bob Woodward has sold his sole to the Republicans, but he depended on Deep Throat to get the story. Do you think telling the fact that it was a Deputy FBI Director was newsworthy -- I think it was -- but the story that Woodward and Bernstein got was more important.

In the end of the day it is about intellectual dishonesty. Glenn Greenwald objects to the use of background sources because they have captured the press, which has become dependent on some to get stories, and therefore thinks all of this "off the record" stuff should be curtailed. I disagree with him, especially when it comes to Washington DC. Misinformation peddled to reporters should be described, if not by naming names, by at least pointing to the general source. But I do not think it is the backgrounding that is the problem -- indeed there is probably too little.

In my view the fundamental problem is that the media conglomerates have become too vulnerable to regulatory displeasure -- they have much bigger businesses beyond news reporting, and too many are in regulated industries. Journalists are employed by companies that have real reasons to fear the powerful -- and before I get a snotty comeback, you try "canning" 150 people in an afternoon for something that had nothing to do with the quality of their work ... believe me it's not fun (nor is it fun to have a poor tea lady come into your office to ask if she still has a job, and not know the answer.) The big media conglomerates do not want to piss off the powerful. Worse, the typical DC (or Westminster) journalist for big media is a prince among paupers .. for most journos wages are pretty close to poverty line, but the big correspondents get to live large. None want to risk that. The result is a pusaliminous press. I would add that Don Graham and Pinch Sulzburger are an odd category of spinelessness with little to lose (for Maureen O'Donnell think Geraldine Kennedy, who spends her time spiking stories to the point that the estimable Mary Raftery seems to have finally quit in frustration to be replaced by the upset no-one Ann Marie Hourihane.)