Although, I am not a Briton, I am mostly offended by the condescending attitude of the US journalists towards British ones in this piece.

I feel it is no less than nationalistic and rasistic bias.

It comes to show the US attitude that things in the US are better than elsewhere in the world by default. It is no different than the idea that Europeans have lower hygiene standards, Mexicans are lazy, and British journalists have lower standards.

Oh yeah, and it is all Germans who are Nazis, as we all well know.

I hope that this can invite you to some introspection.

All you really have to know about Tucker Carlson can be distilled into two anecdotes:

One, he was the "reporter" who was somewhat disgusted while conducting an interview with GWB by his mocking of a woman whose death sentence he had refused to commute. (Karla Faye Tucker, ironically...)

Two, he was one of the B-listers on "Dancing with the Stars," but he was so lame that he was sitting down nearly half the time, evoking nothing so much as being the recipient of a lapdance.

Oh, and he favors bow ties. Wait, there's one more thing. Jon Stewart refused to act funny on Tucker's cable "news" show, which not long afterwards was summarily canceled.

I thought this part was hilarious:

"One of the few sources that has not suffered a credibility decline in recent years is Fox News Channel. Currently, one-in-four (25%) say they believe all or most of what they see on Fox News Channel, virtually unchanged since the outlet was first tested in 2000."

Fox, as one would guess, starts at the bottom of the credibility range and keeps on ticking.

But I actually agreed with you, regarding the decline in public trust of the media. I think CNN stands apart from the others--it had much higher figures in 1998, and consequently dropped much further. For nearly twenty years it operated with no competition and was America's--and the world's news source for an entire generation of US sponsored global conflict. The advent of 4 twenty four news networks has also exposed the public to a face of media they normally would not have seen--and the viciously rapid news cycle has forced the networks to go further and further out on a limb to compete. The resulting overexposure could account for some of the decline. I don't think you can rule that out, but you're entitled to your opinion.

Something Raimondo and Rockwell would never stoop to!

And neither would Ron Paul!

Don't worry. Power will end up in the Obama administration someplace. She'll probably end up in a Clinton administration someplace.

Somewhere recently I read that one of HRC's favorite books is Team of Rivals by Doris Kearns Goodwin, about Lincoln's penchant for surrounding himself with dissenting voices.

That might explain the dissension being reported on among her campaign staff. Except that it still doesn't explain Penn to me. Not adequately, anyway. She should can him. She could get a two-fer or better, considering some of the lines he's put out there.

I just checked and all the videos worked for me.

Oops, correction...I think the facts are more on your side than mine, actually. I scrolled further, and yes print media have taken a nose dive too. And obviously that probably has a lot to do with WMD, etc. But I like the way my theory sounds....

The real battle here is the internal one in the Democratic party. There is a perceived left-right split. No Republican will take the White House, not even Ron Paul. Is there really that much difference between Hillary and Obama? Not as much as there is between any Democrat and any Republican but politics is perception. That's the real race, or struggle for power. I welcome it.

Two, he was one of the B-listers on "Dancing with the Stars," but he was so lame that he was sitting down nearly half the time, evoking nothing so much as being the recipient of a lapdance.

It was the multiple left feet that were the problem.

Or maybe he just felt insecure without his bowtie. ;->

Is there really that much difference between Hillary and Obama? Not as much as there is between any Democrat and any Republican but politics is perception.--L.W.M.

- and that's all it is - is that the odds are greater that a Barak Obama administration will not have Lanny Davis, Rahm Emmanuel, James Carville, Sidney Blumnthal, Madelyn Allbright, et al.

Not that there's anything wrong with them....

It's just that they have had their time.... it's time for something else, if the fates allow.

Except that it still doesn't explain Penn to me. Not adequately, anyway. She should can him. She could get a two-fer or better, considering some of the lines he's put out there.

-- Anonymust

It's a dirty business but in the final analysis, "Rien ne réussit comme le succès."

If she succeeds, he'll get the credit.

Everyone should rent this and watch it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweet_Smell_of_Success

I live here. It sucks.

Not if the campaign's insurgents have their way; they're trying to deny him credit for Ohio and Texas. He's giving himself distance (before the end), by saying he had no control over resources...

You certainly have my vote. Paxman is a man who could/should be giving the MSM lessons in journalistic integrity. Carlson seems a Bizzaro-Paxman who misses the simple point. His is not to pal around with celebrities so that people can greatly admire his access and his friends. In that respect, he reminds me of Chicago Cubs Radio and TV sports reporters who want to pal-up with their heroes instead of offering unbiased journalism.

Carlson's job is to help protect America by focusing on getting at the truth regardless of whom he offends. His responsibility as a member of the fourth estate, is get at the truth by any legal means possible. To some of us that means a word/task, alien to Carlson; RESEARCH. He and much of the American media think that asking inane, irrelevant questions, getting irrelevant answers, which sometimes are lies, and then repeating them to us, is journalism. It is not even close. Rather than asking indirect questions and accepting the answers, his job is to have the research in his hands and gain a hypothesis and set out to verify it, not accept, like a child, that the answer of the interviewee as gospel.

Nor is it his place to be friends with men and women who may be hiding things, have drinks with them, dinner, ride on their yachts and hang out. Access, is his concern? The man plays the fool, or perhaps he is not playing.

Unfortunately, those of us who work in the Underground media of the Blogosphere have few opportunities to corner the criminals and must often write in the darkness and solitude of research and doggedly pursue truth away from the celebrities.

However, I know this, give me an interview with Mr. Blair and I will read him my six year old column which predicted he was lacking the financial power he desired, was in over his head on debts and a mortgage he could not afford for his dream home, and would sell his integrity and support the war for epic, multi-generational, wealth through a job at Carlisle Group, which was as correct as my predictions of the Tsunami and how many would die, two weeks before it’s occurrence.