You mean to you guys? Ever since the media guys were pissing all over themselves at the thought of being "imbedded" with the military in the days leading up to the invasion of Iraq, no one in their right mind thought we would ever get a straight, factual, unbiased report about Iraq anymore.

Want to know why women will decide the next President of the United States and it won't be George W. McCain? Because we are tired of the little boys playing with war toys - and the likes of the pathetic Wolf Blitzers who make a fortune off a 5+ year run of an on-going "story."

Glenn,

Thank you for being a bulldog on the issues we need to keep screaming about so that they either don't go down the memory hole or so that people become aware of them in the first place. I am reminded of a Napoleon quote that sums up our "new" stockholder "news" quite aptly. It goes "It is not necessary to censor the news, it is sufficient to delay it until it no longer matters". They seem to have taken that idea to heart and now we're lucky if we get anything besides constant celebrity coverage or the scoop on someone missing somewhere that only the family cares about. I feel this all started with Gary Condit. Remember him? They literally "covered" that "news" so intensively and so wrongly that they destroyed his career. After the fact, many months later it all turned out to have been incorrect but the damage was done - mission accomplished - one Democratic member of Congress out of the way.

Remember - that is their goal - to postpone all knowledge of their schemes (legal and otherwise) until there isn't anything we can do about it. Or we don't want to because as you and a reader pointed out, it's all so "yawn"...yesterday's news.

This story begs for people to think about their local community and ask oneself who in their local press was extolling the virtues of continuous war in the Middle East??? and decrying any criticism of the use of torture - and extolling how great things are in Guantanemo? Maybe they were paid for their good White House supporting reporting - maybe they received checks - or other ways of rewarding the behavior - and maybe they haven't been up front with the IRS on any gifts - who knows - they need to be outed.

The NYT says that there are hundreds of names listed who were part of the propaganda effort from the White House - WHY NOT PUT THAT LIST of names UP ON THE NET, with a geographical note of where these people live and work? The public has a right to know who allows themselves to be purchased - and certainly with such notice, it may be a deterrent for future behavior....at the very least a light to shine on local coverage of national news and the local journalists who are willing to be parrots.

The NYT article is a dynamite piece of great journalism, a breath of fresh air in the otherwise damp tunnel of the MSM. And, in case you haven't read it yet, so is the NYT opinion piece by Frank Rich on April 20. He specifically attacks ABC's handling of last week's Democratic presidential candidate's debate and, beyond that, the beltway's fawning over John McCain.

Glenn, sometimes I think the brush you use to paint the press is much too broad. Believe it or not, some journalists agree with you and may even have a wider readership!

...this analogy is too delicious not to share:

I found this reading Froomkin's column from today...

Fat Bush

Gail Collins writes in her New York Times opinion column: "Suppose that two years after taking office, George W. Bush discovered that because of the stress of his job, he had gained 40 pounds and was tipping the scales at 220.

"The real-world Bush would immediately barricade himself in the White House gym, refusing all human contact or nourishment until the issue was resolved. But imagine that he regarded getting fat as seriously as he regards melting glaciers, rising oceans and drought and starvation around the planet. In that case, he would set a serious, management-type goal -- of, say, an 18 percent reduction in the rate at which he was gaining weight, to be reached within the next decade.

"Cut to the Rose Garden in 2008 where partial victory is declared. 'Over the past seven years, my administration has taken a rational, balanced approach to these serious challenges,' the 332-pound chief executive announces. He delivers this good news sitting down.

"2012: Bush hits his final goal and 400 pounds at approximately the same time."

Then: "Imagine it's 2025, and you've got a 486-pound ex-president being wheeled in to accept the congratulations of the world on his excellent physical fitness program."

The rest of Collins's column is here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/19/opinion/19collins.html?_r=1&em&ex=
1208750400&en=0cdc502d19d17a13&ei=5087%0A&oref=slogin

Just hum this as Glenn postpones for what ever reason, his correction to his statement" that not a single one saw fit to mention this NYT story demonstrating that these news programs all fed government propaganda to their viewers". well?

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0804/20/rs.01.html

The author fails to note that, in addition to commercial media outlets, our government funded and thoroughly embedded National Propaganda Radio (NPR) and Propaganda Broadcast System (PBS) were equally if not more guilty and despicable in disseminating government propaganda for fanning the flames of war. The only object intelligent analysis and opposing voices in the broadcast media came from Pacifica Radio Networks, Democracy Now and the unaligned, allegedly "anti-american", foreign media.

Quote:GLenn:"having just watched more Sunday news shows than a human being should ever have to endure, it is striking -- though unsurprising -- that not a single one saw fit to mention this NYT story demonstrating that these news programs all fed government propaganda to their viewers. That they refuse to comment on this story and will now black it out says as much about what they really are, and what they really do, as the NYT story itself does. Here is a single one that did just that:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0804/20/rs.01.html

KURTZ: In a lengthy investigation published this morning, "The New York Times" reveals that military analysts, that parade of retired generals and colonels you see on the screen, have been working in far greater cooperation with the Pentagon than anyone knew. They met repeatedly with Donald Rumsfeld, received dozens of briefings, were flown to places like Guantanamo Bay, and often reflected the military's viewpoint in their commentary.

Former NBC analyst Ken Allard said, "I felt that we'd been hosed." Fox News analyst John Garrett wrote the Pentagon, "Please let me know if you have any specific points you want covered or that you would prefer to downplay." NBC's Barry McCaffrey and Wayne Downing were part of a prewar group called The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq.

And then there are the potential corporate conflicts. Many of these retired officers work for lobbying organizations or military contractors.

Retired General James "Spider" Marks, who worked for CNN from 2004 to 2007, disclosed to the network that he also worked for McNeil Technologies, which was bidding on various big contracts. CNN told The Times in a statement that, "We did not ask Mr. Marks the follow-up questions we should have and terminated the relationship last year."

Fox analyst Tom McInerney, who once thanked the Pentagon for providing some talking points, sat on the board of Nortel Government Solutions.

Now, it's hardly shocking that these career military men reflected the Pentagon's point of view, at least until some of them turned against the Iraq war. But they didn't disclose enough about their government and corporate entanglements, and the networks didn't ask enough questions.

Does any of this surprise you?

FELDSTEIN: Surprise, no. Disturb, yes.

I mean, what you're talking about here is a deliberate effort to subvert the democratic process, really, to fool the news media and by it the public, to lie us into this war in Iraq. And the fact that the networks were handmaidens in this lie raises disturbing questions that Congress should investigate.

KURTZ: Wait a second, handmaidens in this lie? I mean, they put these people on. They were clearly labeled retired generals so and so. You knew you were getting their point of view. What you didn't know maybe was how closely they were consulting with the Rumsfeld Pentagon.

So what should the networks have done?

FELDSTEIN: And the networks had an obligation to find out what the backgrounds of these folks were.

Now, you're right, they deceived the networks, and the networks -- if I were CNN or any other network, I would want to know. They talked about "fooling the Wolf Blitzers of the world." Well, if I were Wolf Blitzer, I'd like to know before I put this military analyst on again what his financial ties are or any others I have.

KURTZ: Now, Paul Vallee (ph), who was a retired officer, who was also a Fox News correspondent, he writing in a "Wall Street Journal" op-ed piece with McInerney, who I mentioned earlier, and he wrote to the Pentagon saying I would like to have your input. But is this any different than Democratic strategists and Republican strategists you see on the tube who you know are consulting with the various campaigns?

GERAGHTY: I'm not worried about the briefings. I'm not even worried about the trip to Guantanamo. It's sort of like, hey, let's see what you're looking at. What I am worried about is, if you're in a situation where you're potentially criticizing your boss or somebody who signs your paychecks, or somebody who signs a check to your company, that's one of those things where I just can't understand why you wouldn't disclose that.

You know, is CNN and the other networks in for some blame? Sure. But let's put the guilt where it really belongs, which is on the pundits, who, you know, presumably -- you know, they knew what they were doing presumably. They didn't suddenly -- oh, I forgot that I happen to sit on the board of this major defense contractor.

It's just not plausible.

ARAVOSIS: Right. I mean, no, that's the problem here, is we're not talking about Paul Begala, former Clinton official who consults for CNN. Yes, but you look at him and you go, yes, he's a former Clinton official. That's fine.

Follow link for whole transcript. Is this what Glenn meant when he said NOT ONE morning show? Is Reliable Sources not a morning show?