Glenn, you talk about the media's role as passing on official government propaganda. Their role is really to pass on the propaganda of the right wing power structure. . . .The media doesn't suck up to any sort of power--just the power of their corporate masters.

I don't really distinguish here between those two things because they're one and the same -- and has been for the last eight years. I think it remains to be seen how the media will treat the Government if the Government is controlled by the Left (or something other than the Right). Still, I have two questions:

(1) Other than the tawdry and scurrilous scandals of the 1990s (Lewinsky and Whitewater), in what ways were the media so adversarial to the Clinton administration? Particularly before 1998, were they critical of his military actions, his domestic policies, scrutinizing of how the White House worked? I don't recall that being the case, certainly not in any pronounced way.

(2) Was the Clinton administration actually hostile to the interests of the "corporate masters" who you say dictate how the press behaves? Do you expect an Obama administration to be? You might want to look at whose campaigns those "corporate masters" fund.

I certainly agree that, as a result of the partnership the media formed with the Right during the Lewinsky scandal, and because the media swooned at the feet of Right-wing power in the Bush era, they are far closer to the GOP than Democrats (I talked about some of the reasons why in an interview I did with Harper's a few months ago - http://harpers.org/archive/2008/02/hbc-90002466).

But I'm far from convinced that during the Clinton administration, we had some aggressive, adversarial press on meaningful policy issues (as opposed to tawdry scandals, where the press was beyond "adversarial"), and I'm even less convinced that the press will become so in some future centrist Democratic administration. I'm not disagreeing with you - just saying that I don't think it's as simple as "Media-loves-GOP-and-hates-Democrats." That's part of it, but not the only part.

But, listen, let's review the rules. Here's how it works: the president makes decisions. He's the Decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Just put 'em through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know - fiction

Colbert meant it as satire, but the "reporters of official news" took it to heart.

When the cops are the crooks why bother.....

I thought I was the only one who was shouting into the night that Russert was not the paragon of truly "fair and balanced" journalism everyone said he was.

By the way, is it possible, now, for anyone with any honesty to say, "fair and balanced," without a twitch? Has any other phrase been so perverted from its true meaning?

So, to the extent that Clinton's overtly militaristic or "centrist" (read pro-business policies) matched that agenda, the Media was less than adversarial. It will be the same way w/ McCain, I propose.

'Those journalists (such as Russert) who can do that best and most effectively -- typically due to their close and amicable relationships with Government officials ("it's fun to get to know some of them."

I think the reason that Russert was so effective in being a conduit of government disseminated information is that he was regarded as a tough interviewer by the American public at large. Despite the reality alluded to by Cheney, that Russert's show was considered the softest crash site for government media disasters, a large portion of the American public believed that Russert was a legendary and tough journalist bearing all of those traits taht they would expect from Murphy Brown and Robert Redford in All the Presidents' Men. Thusly, all suspicion would be relaxed whenever he took the stage. That problem of perception has a lot to do with the standards set by the rest of the 'industry', but it also has a lot to do with the ignorance that most Americans have carefully cultivated with a life of media offal and apapthy. At some point, media education needs to start at the other end of the dynamic, with us (or at least our families...good luck with that one)!

Other than Whitewater and Lewinski??? That's like the old saying, "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?"

And remember how Reagan was the teflon president? Of course the only people capable of applying the teflon were the media.

Yes, of course Clinton appeased the corporate masters. And Obama appearns to be happy to do so as well. But the right wing wants total control. That's what authoritarianism is all about. So if Obama gets in, the press will again become adversarial. Indeed the press is already doing it's best to prop up McCain and undermine Obama.

Other than THE PROPOGANDA MODEL I don't know if anybody has ever tried to create an objective way of explaining the confluence of factors that shape the media's political news coverage. I ocnsider it one of the greatest things Noam Chomsky has contributed to the world. It's not perfect, but it is a model that makes specific kind of predictions that can be applied to real world specific situations. It can be proven wrong (not just dismissed because we don't like it), which is utterly rare in political discourse.

In fact, in the anthrax issue, you could apply it. If there is one thing it consistently shows it is that it makes no difference what party is in power. There is simply no evidence that the media's constant protection of collected power is affected significantly by an allience with either party.

On EVERY single issue there is a range of debate that the media will present/allow/maintain. The extremes on each side of this range NEVER threaten the collections of power behind the scenes. That's the point. As long as we are arguing yes/no about WMD's in Iraq we aren't investigating what is actually going on. Look at any big issue and notice how the postions are the right and left always share a deeper presupposition that the media ensures is taboo to question.

I am hoping that Glenn and Chomsky discuss the media a bit because they are each individuals who appreciate that application of evidence and well grounded thought in deconstructing how, specifically, the media is funtioning.