Am I calling for regime change?

Yes, but by us alone, and not any busybodies from abroad.

Sorry for such tangentialism today, but I can't help but try to weave a few waving threads from recent examples:

NBC is refusing - in a very bare and brazen way - to address the evidence brought by the NYT, GG and others relative to disclosure of actual and potential conflicts of interest and the promulgation of propaganda as news.

The WaPo in both the news and editorial division, unfailingly produces propaganda which repeats WH and Bush appointee talking points. Somalia as another opportunity to repeat Iraq? Bring 'em on! - the no-bid contracts and war profiteering, that is. Also - I think that today's Somalia editorial was to soften up the readership for air assaults on Iran. "If we can do it in Somalia, think of the opportunities in Iran...."

ABC subverts a Democratic presidential candidate debate by inserting questions which are Republican ad hominem attacks against the candidates at the expense of evidence-based substantive policy and credentials questions.

Both television and print news media report steadily declining readerships and revenues, thus gutting news rooms of adequate budgets to produce and gather investigative news stories which are factual, evidence-based, well-sourced and portrayed in a contextually accurate manner.

No corporate media source has (to my knowledge) called for the impeachment of Bush/Cheney/Bush appointee.

Since the revenue streams continue to decline, the media consolidation results in corporate owners which all have government contract/military/political ties, and the media steadfastly continues to produce propaganda as news, isn't the emerging picture that of the corporate "parents" in concert with their parasitic hosts using consumers as propaganda recipients and fuel, and not as a public which has a right to be informed? I don't think they are worried about advertising revenue and market share - the readership/viewership's purpose is all about softening and supporting the corporate parent's overriding interests: government contracts/military/industrial interests.

I know that this has been touched on in the blogs, but if that is the overriding purpose of news divisions, it changes the dynamic of how we - the supposedly informed minority segment of the public - should in turn treat the media.

And maybe it isn't with the rightous indignation of GG and other experts who blog. Instead, maybe it should be with "parallel" news divisions which look, feel and interact like the corporate monsters for the purpose of planting real evidence and news for the passive majority consumer of media. But instead, these tabloid looking real news vehicles can use screaming headlines to unmask, in the simplest of terms, the lies that are fed out as news and can feed the truth.

You have to admit that blogs such as this one read well above the average American's reading ability and comprehension.

I remember in my one and only TEEVEE and radio news writing course that the local TV target audience was a C student in the 10th grade of high school - in the days before grades had been watered down to insignificance. Today, that would probably roughly equate to a fourth grade reading equivalency - go heavy on the photos and graphics, and very lightly on the multisyllables and nuanced arguments. In other words - a little more than bumper sticker slogans, but not much more.

And they will have to look like the MS/NBC, Fox, ABC, CBS, USAToday, etc. news sites - they should NOT look studious and serious like the WaPo and NYT. And remember - they all have integrated on air, print and web presences.

Finally - which robber baron is going to finance this? The other problem is that the resources have been so thoroughly stripped from 95% of the people, that the remaining resources are going to fuel and grocery bills and not to philanthropy.

Pandering to the masses? You bet. Feed them enough healthy food disguised as junk food and eventually they'll start to recover their health, in spite of themselves.

He knows his editorial is crap. But he is that corrupt and amoral:

1. It's an irresistible chance to get a dig in against Obama whose looming victory he must fear.

2. Maintains his good membership in the empire at any cost club

3. He has zero respect for readers and is sure they won't really think about what he wrote anyway.

Fred Hiatt, like much of the media, is simply an evil war policy careerist. Such human sludge show up in all industrial aggressor nations.

Thanks to Glenn for making this situation crystal clear to any sentient being.

If you're an American, and not in jail for refusing to pay your taxes that support every bomb we drop, then you can't really point to many fingers at others who are working within the system to change it. There isn't much in this country that isn't tainted.

Why are we bombing/rocketing civilians in such dense urban centers as Bagdad, Mosul, and Basra?

American military casualties. Even moderate American casualties are unacceptable, given the lack of support for the occupation. American strategists and tacticians know it. Therefore, rather than send american squads into buildings where Sadrists are, we simply make those buildings disappear. Better that 50 Iraqis die, or 100, or ???, than a single american soldier.

Hiatt doesn't factor this sort of thing in, of course. But I would bet that minimizing american casualties is probably Job One for those drawing up operations in Iraq--Thou Shalt Not Lose Soldiers.

I'm with Glenn on this (especially because I am not a USAian but a Brit, and I have never subscribed to Salon or otherwise contributed anything to its welfare, except the occasional compliment) : "If the Air Force wants to finance anti-war commentary, more power to them." I have something from USAF via PRWeb on my blog, congratulating themselves on "the millionth mission in the War Against Terror." It's so sick, it's funny. Hence my caption, "Brickbats and Bouquets," which is a reference to Joseph Heller's "Catch 22."

But I also agree with the commentator who pointed out that "internal displacement" is Pentagon-speak for USAF-created refugee masses. It's hard not to internalise one or two of their turns of phrase, because they are designed exactly to slip under your semantic radar.