Print is not dead, but in our culture it doesn't have the cachet of video, at least among those who can't define cachet. What we have to do is combine an Olberman-type hipness with a CSI mentality and grow that video market to augment the work done by the investigative journalists who haven't succumbed to the brown-nose symbiosis factor of Carlson/Russert, etc.

As for filters, the ability to discern fact from spin needs to piggyback on a re-emphasis on civics in our public schools once/if we ever recover from our current teach to the test disease and math/science centricity. The creation of a media filter to cut through the fog of the mushrooming cloud of information will be essential.

You folks need to spend a few minutes on a football message board, all of which have offshoots for other topics (politics), to see how far we have to go. Most people don't possess a media filter, and so White House reporters are arrogant liberal pricks, we need to thank the telecoms for keeping us safe, and rich people need more tax cuts because they create the jobs.

Education, education, education.

I believe that Peev, in doing her job, has done the world a tremendous favor. Like several who already had commented here, I have been a big fan of Power. I even felt that she had the potential to be considered for Ambassador to the UN or even Secretary of State.

The problem, of course, is that those positions are diplomatic. Do we really want another administration where the political appointees are just as inept as those of the Bush administration? By disclosing this blatantly undiplomatic slip by Power, we now have eliminated from consideration a candidate who could have damaged the entire country, rather than a political campaign.

I expect Power to continue to contribute to the discussion of foreign policy, but to do so from an academic environment. In a sense, she could use this as a liberating event, and could now allow herself to be more outspoken in general, rather than having to fall within the narrower confines of the diplomatic language that has to emanate from an administration.

The net result, in my view, is that in reporting the truth, Peev is contributing to the process of finding the best niche for a very capable individual who wishes to play a role in foreign policy development.

GG:

The significant part of the email exchange was his view that he could declare his remarks unilaterally to be off the record, not the content of the email.

I understand that, but the significant part of your post concerns the exercise of judgment and I am simply demonstrating that your own judgment could be viewed as questionable. You don't name the reporter, for example, so that your claim could be substantiated. You are asking the reader to believe something without providing the demonstrative content, just your word for something -- like every reporter does.

And you still have not addressed the difference in sources and subjects of interview, which is what I really wanted to stress.

Glenn, you give out juicy details about a well known journalist who wrote you a petulant e-mail but now won't print it. C'mon, Glenn. You can print it and leave out the name. These jackasses need more exposure, not less.

"You actually think that if Samantha Power blurts out some remark that is off-topic, and the reporter publishes it, that's the reporters' fault and not Power's? Just asking: are you an Obama supporter?"

Let me state for the record that I am an Obama supporter and I agree that the reporter should have published Ms. Power's comments. I also categorically believe that any reporter who agrees after an interview has been conducted to leave something off the record is not fulfilling his responsibilities to his readers. However, in this particular case, I am left uneasy about the way that in setting out to do reporting, the reporting itself became the news. In fact the title of the story is: "Hillary Clinton's a monster': Obama aide blurts out attack in Scotsman interview."

Obviously, Ms. Powers should not have said what she did. She's apologized, seems to be contrite, and has resigned from Obama's campaign. I think it's just as revealing that she said,

"We f***** up in Ohio. In Ohio, they are obsessed and Hillary is going to town on it, because she knows Ohio's the only place they can win."

It's clear to me, that this is a woman with very little political experience who, for reasons only she knows, allowed herself to be pushed over her breaking point. She's responsible for her comments. But, and I'm genuinely curious here, what is the responsibility of the reporter? Of course, to present information, but does he have a responsibility to try to see if there is any validity to her frustrations? My disappointment is that we now seem to be stuck in a loop commenting on Ms. Powers and what she should and shouldn't have said, and meanwhile there is no substantive analysis of the veracity of Hillary's attacks on Obama or her promises to the people of Ohio.

I'm still trying to sort out my thoughts on this and I don't think that it's the reporters fault for publishing the remark. 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.

Thank you Glenn. I read your posts religiously. Your voice is clear and always to the point.

The ass kissing and pathetic journalistic standards of the 'serious' commentators and pundits makes me want to scream. They are all so grateful and self-satisfied to be part of the 'club'.

When The Times hired Bill Kristol I saw the handwriting on the wall. I've started looking for a job in Canada.

Power is a battlefield fatality. A field amputation. As these two camps, Obama and Clinton, continue their civil war they will continue to have casualties of this sort, and good, important, productive members of campaigns will be lost. Furthermore, they will be lost for no good reason--such as their competence, or policy blunders, and so forth. They will be lost through mistatements like Powers--casual mistakes through losing perspective about those in the other camp, and through, frankly, the media egging them on, as the "dirt" will be the media focus from here on out (we are now pretty much 'post horse-race').

I'm not sure I agreed with Power's ideas on bombing Pakistan--Greenwald posted on it some time back--but I do think her loss is a serious one to Obama's presidency. It may be that, after things are solidified, she can be brought back. I'm not sure how such things work. But I do believe that the longer and lower the democratic primary process runs, the more damage they will inflict on themselves, and the less chance that Democrats will be successful in the general election.