It's not the clock....it's the teeth. ;->

Agree about PE and, in general, mo' flava (small f).

OK, Mr. Greenwald. We're deep into this thread now, so is there any chance you could satisfy my morbid curiosity and confirm that the whiny journalist who emailed you was the incompetently programmed cyborg John King?

... are employees of NBC news. Once, a proud and respected journalistic brand. Now being ruined by "journalists" who chatter rather than gather. what happened to the craft of finding out what's going on? Breaking real news.. full of secrets and accountability. Is Tucker still wearing that silly bowtie? That was another peak at his truth: Spoonfed and happy.

In comparing Tim to the British host, they have an equal amount of pugnacity. The difference is where they're coming from: Tim distorts and bullies about income tax returns and whitewater; the brit is focused on public accountability.

Which was more dramatic and satisfying? For me, it was the shave he administered to Mr. Bolten. And a lot of other viewers would agree and were galvanized by this spectacle. Unable to turn away from a captured man, tormented in public by the truth.

So Tim & Tucker and the people who hire and pay these distortionists don't necessarily need to go safe and banal for viewers, readers and profits. They choose to go there. Their laziness is destroying our society.

I don't think it would be any secret, here, to say I've evolved into an Obama fan but, having said that, Peev acted as any responsible reporter should...it was up to someone of the bona-fides of Samantha to realise she was in the midst of an intense American political campaign and conduct herself in a responsible manner. She didn't. The campaign rightly distanced itself from her remarks and she did the honourable thing by falling on her sword.

This is what Hillary has wanted...turn Obama's seemingly closing sprint into a long slog through a political Georgia. Obama's going to have to negotiate the lay of the land in order to get to the shores of the nomination. It's going to be hard but the Obama campaign's got to do it if they want to avoid being on the undercard [as a vice-presidential candidate]of the general election campaign.

Carlson is clearly correct, that "journalists" who don't do the bidding of the powerful will lose access to the powerful, since there are so many other "journalists" lined up to take their place courtside - but how much is that kind of "access" worth?

Actual investigative journalism doesn't have to be (indeed, probably can't be) done from inside the royal court - all the Washington and campaign press corps are reporting on is what our government and government-to-be are *saying*, and for the most part what they're saying are self-serving interpretations of fact at best, and outlight lies the rest of the time.

You don't need access to Karl Rove to find out what the government is actually *doing* - he's not going to tell you. You need access to the administrative assistant down the hall from him, who saw that one memo he wasn't supposed to have seen, and remembers the details of it, and has a conscience. You need access to NEXIS/LEXIS and a good legal database and maybe an assistant who's handy with FOIA requests and tenacious about following them up.

Charlie Savage, who makes me proud of my howmetown paper, doesn't lob softball questions to that awful Presidential Spokesdrone, or suck up to Rove, or hang out by the barbeque with good ol' John McCain - because none of these lame activities would further the actual journalism that he performs. He knows, like every journalist should, is that there are exactly two times he should care about what a government official says - first, when it can be shown to be different from what that government office does, and second (because I'm all for fairness) when said official is asked for a comment on the story before it goes to press.*

*In case either Carlson or Russert are reading this - that part, where you call Senator Gasbag and ask for a comment on the story? You're not asking his permission to print it, and you're not submitting it to him for editing - for any non-journalists reading this, I'm sorry for belaboring the obvious.

How 'bout the past is epilogue? Bush didn't say it, as far as I know, but it would suit him. In fact, the American press being what it is, it would probably enhance his reputation as an intellectual.

“The only honest way out of that paradox, it seems to me, is for journalists to think of what they do as a public service.” It's up to us, the audience, not the reporter, to put the pieces together.”

Money and recognition is now the prime motivator, not serving the truth, your community and country. In our country, less and less people seem to understand that each individual has the responsibility to research, reason and agonize over what and who to believe. That responsibility can not be delegated.

We need to be doing a far better job of teaching students to think and evaluate. The teaching to the test and instant “star journalism” are making things much worse. An uneducated public is the real culprit and gives us Dubya, Iraq and all the other calamities we have endured over the last seven years.

You think political figures should have deletion powers over their own comments?

Good question. I'm reminded of when Ken Herman, reporting in the Austin American-Statesman back in March, 1999, when Governor GWB was ramping up his intentions to become POTUS, quoted Bush as using the word "vulcanize" (when Bush meant balkanize) regarding quotas having a negative effect on society.

A few days later, at the behest of Bush's office, the Statesman reversed itself, issued a "correction" and said that Bush had been misquoted.

It was then, I knew for certain, that in the new media era we are in deep doo-doo.

As Bush would say, "I think we all agree, the past is over."