Send a letter to the Times complaining about Gordon's piece:

letters@nytimes.com

The last time Glenn wrote about Gordon's "an American official said" crap, the Times was inundated with letters, and actually changed that article IIRC.

Push back, people. It may not be much, but it's something.

This is precisely what I was getting at with my last comment - if a single post by a single blogger can make an impact on a single journalist or story, just think of what could happen if all major sectors of the progressive (and perhaps libertarian) blogosphere were mobilized in a concerted way to confront the entire phenomenon of right-wing-enabling, meaningless political news and commentary.

There's a tremendous amount of energy and outrage just waiting to be tapped by an organized effort like this. Money could be raised for ad buys, the message could be synchronized and timed among several popular blogs, and significant chunks of the population could be induced to write letters threatening to go elsewhere for the news if the media does not change its tune in a meaningful way.

The effort could center on specific storylines and themes, in order to give the message direction and particularity. It could also focus on certain television news outlets and programs, for instance, in order to concentrate the spotlight where it is most needed, and more effectively compel change.

This is actually far easier than it might sound, and could be devastatingly effective if done right and on a large enough scale. Is this happening yet? If not, why not?

Let Congress Know We're Watching!

In February, the House of Representatives heard the demands of voters like you and stood up to Bush administration demands for expanded surveillance powers and immunity for big phone companies that broke the law. But now, House leadership is on the precipice of caving in and handing over everything the President has demanded.

Your representative must hear that there will be a major backlash if he or she caves on FISA. Let your representative know you're watching.

Dear ACLU Supporter,

Late Friday night, the ACLU caught wind of a dangerous backroom deal brewing. The “deal” would rush a House vote that would push through a dangerous sellout on government spying powers, possibly in the next few days.

We need you to immediately contact your member of Congress. Let your representative know you’re watching and expect him or her to stand firm. That means no immunity for lawbreaking phone and internet companies, and no spying on Americans without a warrant.

Please also call House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer at (202) 225-3130, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi at (202) 225-0100 or (202) 225-4965. They need to know that as leaders in the House, voters expect them to:

Reject any compromise with telecom immunity. Lawsuits may be our only chance to expose the truth about illegal spying activities by telecom companies and the Bush administration.

Reject Bush’s election year fear-mongering. A bill with real judicial review and no telecom immunity should be the floor, not the ceiling of negotiations.

Time to man the barricades -- and the phones -- again!

I wonder if you have ever heard of or seen this letter:

Below is a "copy" in its entirety of a very important letter to the New York Times from Jewish intellectuals including Albert Einstein, Hannah Arendt, and Sidney Hook that appeared on December 4, 1948. Of particular interest is the reference to the Deir Yassin massacre which occured earlier that year. While it is quoted from in brief on several web sites, it appears nowhere in its entirety, and it deserves to be disseminated as it originally appears.

Letters to The Times New York Times December 4, 1948

New Palestine Party Visit of Menachem Begin and Aims of Political Movement Discussed

TO THE EDITORS OF THE NEW YORK TIMES:

Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our times is the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the "Freedom Party" (Tnuat Haherut), a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties. It was formed out of the membership and following of the former Irgun Zvai Leumi, a terrorist, right-wing, chauvinist organization in Palestine.

The current visit of Menachem Begin, leader of this party, to the United States is obviously calculated to give the impression of American support for his party in the coming Israeli elections, and to cement political ties with conservative Zionist elements in the United States. Several Americans of national repute have lent their names to welcome his visit. It is inconceivable that those who oppose fascism throughout the world, if correctly informed as to Mr. Begin’s political record and perspectives, could add their names and support to the movement he represents.

Before irreparable damage is done by way of financial contributions, public manifestations in Begin’s behalf, and the creation in Palestine of the impression that a large segment of America supports Fascist elements in Israel, the American public must be informed as to the record and objectives of Mr. Begin and his movement...

Rest of letter at link:

http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~wilson/NYTimes1948.html

I agree, this subject is certainly fraught with emotion, on both sides.

May I suggest, if a dispassionate "discussion" is your goal, that it might not be the best approach to start with the statement that someone is calling for the suicide of all Israeli Jews?

best,

Paul

according to American interrogation reports that the United States has supplied to the Iraqi government.

Are you really so foolish that you believe the US holds itself to a higher standard of truth when "supplying" information to Iraq than when it "supplies" information to the American public?

Whether you reply with a "yes" or a "no," your argument's credibility is destroyed.

What of it?

To the best of my recollection, I've never in my life had anything good to say about Likud nor have I expressed support for Israel's policy towards the Palestinians.

Again, forgive me for attempting to discuss practical possibility rather that Utopian ideal. It was foolish of me.