Tucker Carlson is so far from anything recognizable as a journalist it is hard to take him seriously as a spokesman for the American Press. However Mr. Greenwald's own lack of irony is pretty funny. The Obama sychophants and Hillary haters in the American Media have either elevated every minor or non-existent Clinton faux pas into some sort of major character or political flaw. Meanwhile the failure to ask Obama some hard questions, including about his wife's apparent anti-Americanism, continues except for Paul Krugman's and Joe Conanson.

There is few groups as self-protective and self-congratulatory as the American Press.

I think, however, you made an important point about why you didn't publish the comments of the journalist, because it would have made him look foolish, and most likely feel foolish. And that is why it's sad that Samantha Power, a compassionate, dynamic, intelligent person, who unfortunately made a foolish comment to a journalist, should be made to feel foolish, when she is in fact quite the opposite.

FINALLY, do you think there is hope for the U.S. Fourth Estate to really start doing what they are supposed to do and investigate and report facts and, as close as they can assess, the truth, and not pander to politicians of any stripe here in the U.S.?

All this business about "access" really got going after 9/11 with Rove, Cheney and Bush who absolutely shut down the press and made them beg for access. Instead of working hard to get the info when access was denied, the lazy mainstream talking heads made deals. That's one of the most blatant dangers with corporate owned media.

Kudos to the British press and Ms. Peev in particular. I read her article and found nothing inappropriate about it. If Sen. Obama has neophyte advisers who are unused to being interviewed, that would be one thing, but this adviser is an internationally published (and sexily photographed) writer herself.

The key here what it says about Sen. Obama's stump speech to the public: is it a snow job or is it great eloquence? The most damning part of this adviser's comments to me was the admission that it seems to be the former. The "monster" comment is great headline fodder, but it's the latter quote that, taken with the NAFTA/Canadian memo should give all voters pause: Obama is telling us one thing in public and promising internationational governments he doesn't mean what he says. He just has to say it to get votes here.

Keep up the thoughtful commentary!

...at Carlson's beliefs on the relationship between the Press and the powerful in D.C., it is the interview I find most disturbing.

G.W. invades, dismantles the goverment and creates millions of refugees and they are supposed to find the wherewithall to assemble a new governing body! He states that it was up to the Iraqui's after the invasion to put their country back together. How the f**k were they going to do that?

I'm glad there was a Tim Russert example, because Tucker Carlson is a complete joke. He's the kind of partisan that should be working for the Republican party (he's just a mouthpiece after all) instead of hosting his own show. Sure, you can have a conservative viewpoint and host a televised editorial, but this guy's just a living breathing bullet point list of Republican positions. He's loyal to the party, not to any kind of ideal.

Tucker Carlson is a sycophantic corporate lapdog.

Sycophantic is the way polite people say ass-kissing.

I don't think he has the stones to be a warmongerer, but oh you show hime the backside of a defense contractor and his eyes will light up, his ears perk up, he will start to drool and his tail will wag. In other words, he is a credit to his profession. He and the Discovery Channel are why i enjoy not having cable.

I think, however, you made an important point about why you didn't publish the comments of the journalist, because it would have made him look foolish, and most likely feel foolish.

That isn't what I said. I've published many email exchanges which, in my view, made the writer look quite foolish. John King, Col. Boylan and John Harris are just a few examples.

I didn't refrain from publishing it because it would have made the reporter look foolish. I refrained from publishing it because it had no other real value. Unlike the other emails I published, which provided insight into the mindset of reporters or otherwise reflected something significant about the person in question, these email were just whiny, petty and small. They weren't instructive or relevant to anything. The only effect would have been to laugh at the person.

By stark contrast, if a top aide to a presidential candidate calls the other candidate a "monster," that is plainly newsworthy. I really like Samantha Power. At some point, everyone in public life -- and everyone who isn't -- is going to say something that is a little misguided, that they regret saying. I think this was far from a firing offense. But she said it; it was relevant; and it should have been reported.

What Pokemon does Hillary most resemble? You want her on your side.

Don't you remember when you were a kid that if you said anything with your fingers crossed, you couldn't be accused of lying because your fingers were crossed when you said it? Therefore, you didn't really lie. So if you say "off the record" before you say it, it doesn't count as if you really said it.

And just in case anyone's wondering if Paxman gets more deferential when he's talking to British politicians or more senior figures:

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

http://youtube.com/watch?v=K1I0FqH0yrc

And a nice little highlights package:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=sCo7qbzEX3c

Quite clearly it would seem that the American press is reporting FOR the establishment, rather than the public.

On the other hand, can we blame them? Isn't it the American way to approach work by the easiest way possible? Yes they could take an antagonistic approach to those they cover but then they'd have to do the hard work of digging up information rather than calling a friend for a quote. I submit that the state of the American press is less a reflection of the press, than it is of America.