Yes. Last night I was having a conversation with a colleague, and I happened to mention how I viewed the real pressing issue of this time that no politician running for president was discussing: the terrible suffering of the Iraqi people that was visited upon them by my country. All the innocent dead and shattered lives. And the incredible shame of it all. And not a word about it from anyone. Burning shame for my country. Sadness.

I was watching Countdown the other day. I used to really enjoy this show. It seems that at a certain point, Olbermann (sp?) was given a lot of latitude to air subversive and counter-conventional wisdom opinions and stories. I was alwasy fascinated and somewhat pleased that such things were getting on the air--especially his scathing over-the-top hysterics about Bush on some of his program--his "you sir"'s.

But lately I find myself fast forwarding the Tivo through almost the entire program. There used to be rarely seen guests with actual credentials for political critique, but lately these have been replaced by the same regular cadre of Newsweek lifers, snapping about candidate rhetoric and image but giving no deeper info. And more and more, I find Olbermann twisting the day's news cycle to fit his increasingly two-dimensional "progressive" analysis. Much like Fox, Olbermann spins the other way, and mundane scenes and events with very little to do with anything are twisted into evidence of the evil of the right and thrown to us like red meat to the lions.

My point is this: In this media machine, even the left wing, when given a voice, is whittled, and warped and fit snugly into soundbites and caricatures. And I have to say, given PBS's (and NPR's) horrifyingly bad coverage of the Iraq war since its inception, that public media outlets cannot be expected to be critical of the establishment when it really matters.

Any ideas on what's to do?

I have lived in Europe for several years, and have always enjoyed the approach taken on "Hardtalk" on BBC. I have seen Americans on this program, and the commentator asks really tough questions, which they answer relatively well. Often they are not politicians. I have seen two different British commentators and both were the kind that asked tough, tough questions, and do follow-up that one never sees from TIm Russert, and his lesser peers. We Americans have been bought off by the access ploy from politicians. It has grown virulent and ruined our press corps. Larry King does not help at all, either...

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.

We know your shit does not stink, no more than Hillary's. You never said anything you regretted -- I suppose as an O'Donnell you live in the environs of Dungloe, where no one can say anything rude about an O'Donnell.

The woman has had an impressive career, she has done an awful lot, much of it good. Harvard is not Trinity or Yale, it is not particularly incestuous in its hiring and it is perhaps tougher for a Harvard grad to get on faculty there than anywhere else. Moreover, given her resume, she could have walked, sauntered into a well paid job, or a judicial clerkship and straight into a professorship at 29 -- it is pretty evident that she did not.

Yes, there is a whiff of resentment in your comments about her, a big dose of "returned yank" syndrome as it is known among Irish expatriots, especially professionals, and more than a little schadenfruede to be nice or even healthy.

But as we all now know, you have never embarrassed yourself in public, you have always been right, you have never made a mistake. I unfortunately make mistakes all the time, nothing too fatal, but a lot ... but then I put myself in roles where right answers are not obvious and mistakes will be made. I am sure that last sentence will attract another slightly snide comment.

Isn't this piece in direct contradiction to what

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? . . ..

No points for consistency here Glenn. How disappointing.

If you want to accuse someone of making inconsistent arguments, the bare minimal obligation you have is to quote the two statements that are allegedly inconsistent, not just invent paraphrases that are inconsistent, attribute them to the person, and think you've made a point.

I admit that I have very mixed feelings about this.

On the one hand, Glenn is of course right, and the American press approaches those in power on bended knee far too often. The results of this are clear to see, with the spectaculary lame press coverage of the Bush Administration, and the enabling of the official B.S. for public consumption.

On the other hand, is it unreasonable to suppose that people might avoid a business like politics if they can expect that their careers can be ended by one careless slip of the tongue? Or is it unreasonable to think that the reason so many politicians speak in brainless, talking-points-based platitudes--which reporters profess to hate--is because they know that wandering off those talking points opens them up to this kind of feeding frenzy? Haven't we seen how the Bush Administration punishes reporters who have the temerity to ask him hard questions by making sure they never get called on again? Is it unreasonable to think that many other powerful politicians do the same thing?

(And before anyone points out the obvious--"If everyone asked hard questions, then that wouldn't be possible!"--let me note that there is no way on God's green Earth that every reporter is going to get on board with being tough. And until that Utopian day, the powerful will avoid the tough reporters and go to the easy ones.)

I don't know the answer, honestly. But I do know that neither extreme is palatable. Where in the middle is the right place to meet? I have no idea.