It goes to the fundamental functions of an independent media in a healthy democracy

Not only should we have an independent media in a healthy democracy but we're also supposed to have a 'dependent' military that relies on the active assent of the electorate for its continued existence.

From article II of the Constitution:

The Congress shall have Power To:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,

suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United

States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

It is clear from this that the Military was to be no less "accountable to the people" than any other branch of government and the 2-year limit on appropriations was specifically put in place so that the standing Army wouldn't take on a life of its own.

How then are we to reconcile this with the Military actually treating US public opinion as a field of battle and the US electorate as a potential enemy?

The mind reels....

When AB says that the President's words are news, he does so to insinuate that that is the reason why the coverage slanted pro-government. A good way to play "shoe on the other foot" is to recall the press' reaction to Bill Clinton's pronouncements on Bosnia or Kosovo, or on the impeachment or on just about anything else. Viturally everything he said was reported (first, just like AB said), but only as a springboard to the entertaining bombast of right-wing kooks -- of which there was no shortage, and of which there is no left-wing equivalent. (OK, I guess the American Communist Party, but come on.)

I think AB deserves kudos for doing this at all. He always struck me as a good guy. But this interview reveals what his reporting also revealed: in trying to frame a national debate on whether and how to go to war, he is simply in over his head. I can hear his defensiveness, so I know he has regrets. He's not dumb or mean-spirited or overtly biased. He is, however, the product of his education, his training, his experiences. While he studies political science in college, his career was similar to most broadcast news journalists -- a local reporter, then a local anchor, and finally the move to network correspondent and anchor. He is not a policy analyst, he has not spent years thinking and reading about these issues, he does not spend his spare time talking to experts in this area. His skills have to do with being glib on the air, making sure his prose is engaging, being a likable on-air presence, etc.

It is no surprise that the employees or large public companies have no ability to conduct meaningful journalism. What GG does is meaningful journalism -- though his on-camera manner isn't polished (yet!).

"Journalism" is shifting at long last back to its roots as meaningful reporting and analysis, and away from its corporate-entertainment form as the 4th hour of Good Morning America.

Yes the mind reels. The mind reels at the thought of what sort of a system we call it when the military, industry, commerce, and central government are all fused into one unholy-whole. I think that was tried in Italy, and it was named fascism. (and the damn trains never really ran on time)

The USA is a killing machine and we are just arguing about who to kill and how many; we damn sure are never going to say that we should stop brutalizing and killing around the world. Look at what everyone said about Ron Paul's idea to bring all troops home to the USA --- damn dangerous kook with ideas like that.

We will stop killing others when the world stops us, not before. (much as a drunk will drink till he hits rock bottom)

A question for the crowd. With 30,000 nukes and an armed population --- who the hell would ever invade us?

That seems to be the only explanation for why you were so easy on him. Within seconds of the start of the interview, Brown outright lied:

""To the extent that anyone ... uhhhhhhh ...gets paid by any news organization ... in my case uhhh CNN where I was working ... uhhh ... any of those people who did not disclose their ... their financial connections to the war or to the Pentagon ... ummmm ... that's a sin ... uhhhh it's a sin against journalism ... uhhhh ... a violation of the trust between the network and the viewer"

Does Aaron Brown and CNN invite guests onto his show without any vetting at all? Obviously they were NEVER EVEN ASKED THE MOST BASIC QUESTIONS!

What was Brown's agenda for doing this interview? Because he does himself no favors, only reminding listeners why he was so hard to stomach on TV. He sounds petulant, tired, and unwilling to respond to serious questions without condescension (including the faux-folksy mannerisms that Colbert has named as a feature of the persona he wanted to create). Ironically, he ends with a rant about "people" wanting to hear only what they already agree with. Is he so blind to his own constituency--establishment journalists? He may be thoughtful, but one would have expected his sacking by CNN would have clued him in that he's not nearly as smart as he thinks he is.

Glenn,

this was a fascinating interview with Brown. I think it was extremely constructive, and I'm grateful to you and Brown for it. Brown's insights into the process of constructing his shows, and his perspective on "what is a story" was particularly enlightening. One doesn't have to agree with his analysis to find it instructive.

I think that at this point in that dreadful and shameful history, a lot of engagement from both sides, and a thoughtful conversation, like this interview provided, is perhaps our next step in trying to improve and reform the media that we have.