Critic of Norquist

Carlson has also been a critic of conservative activist Grover Norquist, calling him a "mean-spirited, humorless, dishonest little creep…an embarrassing anomaly, the leering, drunken uncle everyone else wishes would stay home...[he] is repulsive, granted, but there aren't nearly enough of him to start a purge trial."[10] According to American Politics Journal, Carlson went a step further, characterizing Norquist as a "buffoon commissar who has misplaced his principles to the extent of accepting money to lobby on behalf of the Marxist government of the Seychelles."[11]

Confrontations between Carlson and Norquist escalated, with Carlson dismissing Norquist's weekly conservative movement meetings as events "where conservative-movement activists, political strategists, Congressional staffers, and conservative journalists who are deemed loyal from rags like National Review and The Washington Times gather to hash out the GOP party line." Carlson then wrote a critical profile of Norquist.

Norquist retaliation?

In a move rumored by Beltway insiders to have been retaliation for the profile, Norquist tried to convince media mogul Rupert Murdoch to abandon financial support for the Weekly Standard, for which Carlson was a writer. Author David Brock alleged Carlson told him that then-U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich became involved in the feud, and that Carlson's job was endangered. Norquist has since denied using such tactics with Carlson, although he has admitted telephoning Murdoch insider Eric Breindel to discuss "alleged inaccuracies in Carlson's piece."[11]

As of now, all but one of the video clips referenced in Glenn's story are "no longer available". I guess this speaks volumes about the American press and pretty much proves the point. The Tucker Carlson interview was still available, and made chills run down my spine. Are American media people so clueless about their responsibility? Has anyone read the First Amendment lately, and understood how short the life of American democracy will be if the press and the elite become cozy with each other, at the expense of all the "common folk" who depend on a free press? I am horrified...

Actually not my opinion at all, but the results of many years of polling by Pew. I should have mentioned that. The link goes to the poll numbers and analysis.

I personally doubt that the deterioration in credibility has to do with increased competition among news providers. They are all going down in credibility, regardless of network affiliation, etc.

As a public official for many years and in five different administrations and as many agencies of government, I have never spoken to a reporter (even one who was a close friend) without negotiating the ground rules first; sometimes sentence by sentence. I have never known a US government official who didn't realize that everything was on the record unless it was previously agreed to be off the record, on background, deep background etc. I can only assume Samantha was inexperienced at dealing with the press.

In the last two decades the American press has become extremely lazy and rarely even tries to get on the record quotes by nailing the story and then getting "Mr. Quotable" to give a response or an opportunity to contradict. Our democracy has suffered greatly from the instinct to keep a journalist's sources friendly.

It's not just journalists though. I was a lobbyist for many years and it turned my stomach to watch my colleagues withhold an arsenal of tactics which might have successfully advanced their clients' interests because they had another client's interests coming before the same public official and they didn't want him pisssd off.

I've seen it done often by lawyers who didn't want to piss off judges because they might be back before them next week with a different case and a different client.

Let's assume it happens everywhere that ethics take a back seat to profit motives. Lately that seems to be everywhere. Surely most observers have noticed that MSNBC has become little more than a mouthpiece for its interviewees over the past few years. And why would Russert infuriate an important White House guest like, for example, Cheney, who would then never reappear on Meet the Press? Maybe the New Scotsman doesn't worry quite so much about ratings as our corporate journalistic enterprises do.

I suspect that the American subconscious has become so tired of deceptive spoon feeding of government propaganda by an "independent press" that its disgust has fed Obamamania and given it so much currency. We don't know if he's for real. We hope he is. But his emphasis on "transparency" must feed our hunger for truth from power.

I am a reporter for a community newspaper, covering really local news. Nothing is earthshaking. Almost routinely my sources -- official and unofficial -- say "off the record" and then launch into saying whatever they want to say. It's strange. They want to tell the press something, but they don't want it attributed to them. It's as though they want to whisper some canard, then run and hide.

As routinely as they ask for it,I say, now, wait, everything we say is on the record. That's the way it works. If you want to say something off the record, we have to agree. I seldom agree, except sometimes.

Way, way often people proceed to say stuff anyhow, even after being told it's on the record. And keep in mind, the stuff we're talking about is not big news.

The youtubes are all available on youtube. They, for some reason, have fallen away on Glenn's blog. I've posted the links to three of them. I'm sure the other is available too.

John Bolton Jeremy Paxman

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZCb45xgF44

Irish lady journalist and G.W. Bush

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fze2J2Ve9is

Paxman interveiw of Tony Blair

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WosZHUfMjE0

On the Record comes down to telling lies and repeating propaganda. Off the Record implies they are hiding something or do not want something disclosed? Why? They might let down their guard and make waves in the sea of lies? They might tell the truth?

If people stood extremely firm on the idea of a fully transparent government and made that a priority, it might help... assuming quite a bit...

I believe that despite the enormous odds which exist, unflinching, unswerving, fierce intellectual determination, as citizens, to define the real truth of our lives and our societies is a crucial obligation which devolves upon us all. It is in fact mandatory.