Dear Glenn,

I agree with you 99% of the time, and most of what you say here is correct--the British press is much more aggressive and less deferential, and that's a *good* thing. As is Russert's absurd statement that everything is automatically off the record.

*However,* in this one lone case, I feel like Power's remark should have been taken off the record, and I believe I'd say the same if it was a Republican. There is a standard in this country of granting interview with the occasional comment offered off the record, and the "off the record" mention itself seems to come naturally--it's not like she said "oh hell! I can't believe I just said that!"

If one was British and talking to the British press, or American and talking to the American press, there wouldn't have been a problem--I believe Power got shanghaied by a culture of journalism that is significantly more aggressive (remember, she's not an experienced politician). It'd be like trying to play cricket while observing the rules of baseball. It'd be different if Power had tried to claim "off the record" even two minutes after she said, but given that the mention is so offhand and comes immediately after the "monster" quote, I must in this specific instance side with Carlson. At the very least, the journalist had a responsibility to inform Power *immediately* after she said "by the way that's off the record", to say "No, actually, it isn't." The journalist's silence, in this case, equals consent, so it is fair to say Power was blindsided.

so what?

but in case you come back to read this thread, I wanted to address something you say:

I do think it is a failing of the media that we now have to spend a week talking about how naive and inappropriate Ms. Powers was, without debating whether or not Hillary is running the kind of campaign that makes brilliant people so angry they call her a monster.

I agree with you entirely. We've gotten stuck in the "Samantha called Hillary a monster," cycle without evaluating anything else that was said in the interview. I have posted elsewhere that her comments, if reflective of an insider's view of the Obama campaign, are revealing in that she seemed genuinely impressed with the level of deceit going on by Hillary. Knowing firsthand what goes on in political campaigns, her seemingly genuine distress and surprise seem worthy of some investigation.

It reminds me exactly of the helpless feeling I got as I watched the whole Dan Rather demise unfold in slow motion. Remember the fake memo indicting W's going AWOL in the National Guard (or whatever the specifics were)? ALL anyone talked about from the moment that memo became suspect was that the memo was suspect. There was absolutely no more talk WHATSOEVER of the original story, which by all accounts was essentially true. So, here Dan Rather was crucified by the right/press and the real story was being ignored. God, that frustrated me.

Ahhh! The Age of Enlightenment! This is the Thomas Jefferson that Ron Paul is talking about!

Proposed by Thomas Jefferson in a Virginia Bill number 64, 18 June 1779:

Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting thro' the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the least. - Bill Number 64, authored by Jefferson and "Reported by the Committee of Advisors, 18 June 1779"

But wait...

It is true that he proposed this legislation. The problem with the argument though is that it drops the context of the times and intent of Jefferson’s proposal. At this time the punishment for these "crimes" was death (so those that say that Jefferson’s position was too extreme are, in effect, saying that they believe they should have continued to execute homosexuals). Jefferson sought to make the punishment less severe. He did not propose castration where no law had existed before.

In a letter to Edmund Pendelton Jefferson wrote...

Punishments I know are necessary, & I would provide them, strict & inflexible, but proportioned to the crime. Death might be inflicted for murder & perhaps for treason if you would take out of the description of treason all crimes which are not such in their nature. Rape, buggery, etc., -- punish by castration. All other crimes by working on high roads, rivers, gallies, etc., a certain time proportioned to the offence. But as this would be no punishment or change of condition to slaves (me miserum!) let them be sent to other countries. By these means we should be freed from the wickedness of the latter, & the former would be living monuments of public vengeance. Laws thus proportionate & mild should never be dispensed with. Let mercy be the character of the lawgiver, but let the judge be a mere machine.

These punishments are no doubt harsh by today’s standards. But, we cannot be assured that Jefferson actually felt these laws just. From this, we do know that he believed death too severe and sought to show greater mercy.

Many would then ask, "if Jefferson believed homosexuality to not be a proper crime then why did he not call for repeal of all laws against it." I don't know that he did not believe it a proper place for the law. But, he was a politician and understood the need for pragmatic approaches. As he wrote...

The ground of liberty is to be gained by inches, and we must be contented to secure what we can get from time to time and eternally press forward for what is yet to get. It takes time to persuade men to do even what is for their own good.

http://www.ronstringfield.com/?r=h&d=1&e=168

Wow, thanks, Glenn. One of your best posts to date. Imagine the world we might live in if more first class intellects like Paxman were on our air waves.

What's interesting is that the BBC is largely funded by the British government, and yet considers its remit to act outside of any government agenda in order to protect the interests of the public -- exposing the governement's contradictions and failures and holding them to intense public scrutiny. Paxman is just one example. BB Radio 4's John Humphrey's is equally bombastic (though not as effective.)

I suppose the journalistic standards to which Tucker Carlson refers is the tabloid journalism of papers like The Sun (Murdoch-owned.) Isn't it interesting that the privately owned journalistic entertainment networks show so much less scrutiny of power in the name of pursuing 'shareholder value?' It's the fact that these mega corporations rely so heavily on the deregulating legislation that the government passes that keeps them in line.