No worries. I still love you. (Apologies to Mrs. Bamage.)

I didn't watch much msnbc or listen to much Air America once both proved so incredibly biased during the primaries, but I caught and transcribed the two examples noted in my first post in this thread (on page 7) in just a few minutes of listening/viewing to Maddow:

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/08/21/tnr/permalink/6a0c15c9b1b901b800ea805b87217169.html

Also, after one of the debates, Maddow said that an answer Hillary gave about her Iraq AUMF vote "insults me personally." Given the consistent bashing that Hillary got from Olbermann, Matthews, Russert, and company, and the sampling of comments I've encountered, I'd be quite surprised if these are close to the only ones.

I have never considered Keith O. to be anything approximating news/journalism. He speaks to a particular point of view and if that is your point of view then you will probably be entertained by how he communicates his ideas.

As to Rachel, I don't know what she is capable of because I don't think she has been able to really express what her expertise is on MSNBC. Having no control of the subject or dialogue she is merely reacting rather than taking a leading role in analyzing news.

But that is kind of my point. I don't want more mirror images of the Fox model even if they speak to my point of view (which is liberal). I believe that the best way to serve my point of view is not to have a network or newspaper or anything else blindly parrot it to the choir, but for factual reporting to be followed up by substantive analysis by people with real expertise in the specific issue being discussed.

For example, I trust that Rachel is very intelligent, but I wouldn't view her as the best source for discussing granular economic data in the same way that say Robert Reich or many others could. At the same time, she apparently has a doctorate in political science so I imagine that comes with a concentration and area of expertise that I would be very willing to hear her discuss with others who share that expertise.

Where the journalist fits in here is to moderate that discussion so that it focuses on delving into a fact based analysis that answers questions to bring a higher degree of understanding.

That said, do i think this will lead to the end of Fox--of course not. Fox and its brand of propaganda have been around for centuries (the American Revolution is in large part the result of propoganda propogated as news). But it is possible to lessen its influence and credibility and you do that by providing people with more, not less, resources to better understand the world and events. I really don't believe it is done via a spitting match where my liberal station takes on your conservative station. That will get us nowhere and we liberals are better than that.

title: The Plot Against Liberal America

Basically, The American Dream in all it's "this land is your land, this land is my land" glory is all over ... Norquist won.

link on my name

I used to read TNR as a magazine of thoughtful compromise. The Overton Window shifted decisively for them in the run up to the Iraq war. It now gazes out upon the Ariel Sharon-inspired landscape (hey, he's not Bibi!) where the compromise is between the center and the right only. Any attempt (no matter how rare) by mainstream media in America to move out of this window must be condemned.

I, too, appreciate Ms. Maddow's insights. The number of people who are hoping that her show goes deeper than Keith's is quite numerous. Count me among them.

I sincerely hope we get more substance and less fluff. Congrats and good luck with your show!

Haven't followed the whole thread--but to me, "maturity"'s first post sounded very much like someone who had her/his tongue very firmly planted in her/his cheek.

Amazing that there are still so many people who see the entire world through -- every last square inch of it -- exclusively through the prism of their specific preference in the Obama v. Hillary wars (Hard-core Obama fanatics now think that Chris Matthews and other Hilary-haters are exemplars of great journalism and hard-core Hillary fanatics think that Fox is Fair and Balanced).

what is amazing is that Greenwald continues to carry water for the outrageous misogyny and Clinton bashing that characterized Olbermann's show. Glenn even throws in some of his own misogyny ("shrew") while flat out lying about Maddow ("didn't support Hillary vorciferously enough"? how about "trashed Hillary Clinton at nearly every opportunity -- including false accusations of racism... of course, Greenwald already showed he's a master of that particular brand of calumny).

BTW, Glenn, no one I know said that Fox was "fair" -- it was merely 'balanced' to the extent that it generally treated Clinton and Obama with equal disdain -- which for those of us who supported Clinton, was as close as we could get to decent coverage of the primaries.

Seriously -- the fact that you ignored the blatant bias and misogyny of the media, and your peers in the blogosphere, means that you can no longer claim any credibility as a media critic. Stick to FISA, and torture, and anthrax, etc.... because as a media critic, you're simply John Avarosis with slightly better table manners.

@maturity,

You are a liar, and I mean that in the nicest way possible. There is no way a former Hillary supporter went from a Democratic wingnut to a Republican troll because of Obama. You said that as a Hillary supporter, you canceled your NYT subscription and now watches Fox News exclusively?!? If Obama and Chris Matthews led you to Karl Rove's anaylsis on Fox, then if you aren't a liar, you must be a racist.

Again, I mean all this in the nicest way possible and suggest you get some help. You must crave attention in the worst way or have some anti-social personality disorder.

Take Care and good luck.