I happened to catch the whole disgraceful Tucker interview. I was impressed by how Peev deflected his blows in the beginning, and then pounced when he made his idiotic remark about how she was screwing it up for other reporters by sticking to journalistic protocol for reporting what Sam Power actually said, per their prior agreement.

When I saw Peev pop up on Tweety's show in the next hour, I was fully expecting her to get the tag team treatment. But he must have seen Tucker get his head handed to him and kept interview very short, and without Carlson's hauty, judgmental bs.

Say want you want about Matthews (and I've said my share), but he displayed, at least on this occasion, good survival instincts.

As for Sam-- what a knockout! I hope we haven't seen or heard the last from her.

With all due respect--and acknowledging Peev's right to publish what was said--I think she erred in publishing it. Not because the press's access to "the powerful" will now be compromised--I think that argument's a heap of trash for all the reasons Glenn has given--but because this is a classic example of the press taking a minor but sellable issue over things that should be the substance of our politics.

Glenn asks if it isn't news that the adviser of one campaign calls Hillary Clinton a monster. It's news to the extent that our blow-dried and salacious press will make it news; but is it news in the sense that it is surprising, or relevant to the decisions facing America?

I mean, come on, who doesn't think that in their hearts the advisers of both sides have come to a venomous view of each other, as such tough competitors always will? Who thinks that that has any long term significance for who will make a better president, when the race is over?

I suppose you could argue that it's a weakness in a campaign to have a top adviser who, however smart, can lose focus like that. But are we so intolerant of human weakness--so confident that there are armies of talented people like S. Power who in addition to all her many strengths also will not have a moment of weakness and say something stupid--that we can afford to have our politics dominated by what is, in essence, unsurprising gossip?

Let's face it: the world would grind to a halt if we all spent our time on this kind of petty insult. To the extent that Peev is trying to sell papers, I understand her choice. To the extent that she's trying to be the kind of independent, inquisitive, public-minded journalist more usually celebrated on this blog, I don't think she made the right choice. And given that commercial motives will dominate journalism completely unless the public objects, now and then, and calls for a little self-editing from journalists (*not* in deference to power, but out of respect for their responsibilities for the quality of public discourse)--to that extent, I think Peev deserves a little flack. Just as, by the way, when Russert et. al. go off about $400 haircuts.

What I suspect, however, is that she was perhaps naive about how the AMERICAN press would play this kind of salacious crap. In Britain, people are always calling eachother monsters. It's only here we have the Puritan self-righteousness that fans such remarks into tempests that, in turn, dominate our politics even as real issues burn without comment. I doubt she expected this remark would generate a firestorm.

Russert and Carlson have effectively leapfrogged back to pre-1694 England. They seem to be actually afraid that their licenses will be revoked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_press#England

Perhaps the history of the press in a free country needs to be stressed more strongly in our journalism schools. Could their giving up of hard won freedoms be made illegal, much like we can not legally sell ourselves into slavery--or can we?

Tucker Carlson's comments are illustrative in that they reveal the corporate news media's own view of the real function of the "news."

The news isn't for providing the citizens with the information needed to run a complex 21st Century democracy.

Instead, the news is simply that filler that runs between the commercials. They've got time to fill, and if they should ever offend their "subjects," they'd have to go out and research stories instead of having them spoon-fed to them.

Today subservience, credulity and amnesia are the three pillars of American "journalism." It's much easier (and safer for the career) than actually working. The only loser has been our democracy.

So, in your eyes, an email addressed personally to you is considered public discourse, suitable for publication and attribution?

If it's from a public figure and relates to something I wrote about, then absolutely. I'm not writing about reporters and political issues in a quest to make friends and develop personal relationships. I'm writing in order to disclose what I think is relevant and provides insight into significant matters. If the topic of something I write emails me about that topic, I would treat what they say exactly the same as if they called me: as something I can disclose in the absence of an agreement not to do so.

My experience with Netiquette is that email communication is presumed private unless explicitly indicated,

or permission is given, to distribute widely.

Why would statements in email be treated any differently than statements in a telephone conversation or face-to-face discussion?

Perhaps you should update your caricature on your web page to include the popular T-shirt slogan: "I'm blogging this!" That way, people will understand that you have no private boundaries w/r/t communication.

I'm a writer who writes about political and media issues. If someone with whom I have no personal relationship emails me about something I've written, what possible basis is there for them to expect that I will keep that concealed?

According to the Russerts and Tuckers their purpose is to be told newsworthy topics so that they will not report these newsworthy topics and that the 1st Amendment's purpose is to protect reporters that don't report what's newsworthy, controversial, illegal and insane that affects the country and it's citizenry from knowing that they are suckers, taxpaying suckers, whom pay taxes for the purpose of a criminal government, which operates with tax monies, which is doing illegal and insane acts. According to the Russerts the Constitutions with its bill of rights was concocted to protect the government from the citizens whose tax monies are used to repress and persecute those very same taxpayers.Something is wrong with this picture, although if the purpose of the Constitution is to protect government and steal taxpayers tax monies then the Constitution isn't worth protecting. History proves that a country cannot operate dysfunctional, malfunctioning , deceitfully and criminally insane in perpetuity.