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 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 There used to be rarely seen guests with actual credentials for political critique, but lately these have been replaced by the same regular cadre of Newsweek lifers, snapping about candidate rhetoric and image but giving no deeper info.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?

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.

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.)