Maddow's credibility (and/or insight) came into question (or should have) when she propagated blatantly false narratives.

I understand. But who on television hasn't ever done that, in your view?

Have you watched Olbermann's report on RFK-gate?

Yes - it was absurd. I actually think Joan Walsh had the best commentary on that particular "scandal" -- voiced right to Chris Matthews' face, and quite critical of Olbermann and Howard Fineman.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyLl1yeukDE

I agreed with Clinton supporters way, way more than Obama supporters on those RFK comments, but that's just an isolated episode. Lots of partisans on both sides of that war went overboard in defense of their candidate and in hatred of the other. I don't think Rachel did in general, but again, even if she had, that's one mistake -- who isn't guilty of that at some point?

I wonder would the total number include the "rustic cabin", or not?

BTW, can we play the magical mind game for a sec? What would happen if the democratic candidate was so wealthy he couldn't remember the number of houses he owned, and had called social security a disgrace, while he was found to be collecting @ $2,000/month from it? Oh, how many news cycles would echo with the constant howls of hypocrisy?.

Mirrors are quite inexpensive and come in handy at times.

You don't have a problem with her saying things that aren't factually true, you have a problem with her giving her opinion when it is not favorable to your preferred candidate.

It's factually untrue that Hillary Clinton publicly speculated about Obama's assassination.

Note: posts linked below contain/refer to four-letter words...

http://tinyurl.com/5kjo3f

http://www.correntewire.com/argus_endorsing_hillary_proves_that_the_whole_rfk_scandal_is_a_typical_obama_crock

stopped trusting how he presented the campaign...

It's very difficult (if not impossible) to regain that trust once lost.... in my experience.

Apparently, Glenn's overall trust in Olberman is intact or he's got some "less evil" thing happening ...

I also got tired of Keith's shouting. It was uncomfortable.

Have you read Mr. Perlstein's book 'Nixonland'?

If you haven't, then you don't know what I'm talking about.

I fully understand the right wing wackjobs will yipe & holler & try to smear us whatever we say or do.

We shouldn't make it easy for them. Read the book. Let's just say it was a target rich environment for your GOP polemicists back then.

I believe the prophecies indicated that Timberman would transubstantiate and BECOME the internet itself. Thus, we would all partake of him whenever we posted. Do this, he said, in his last post, in remembrance of me (also, he said to imagine a little bell ringing in the background).

I happened to watch Maher on Larry King the other night. Even he thought the only way to promote third parties required a constitutional amendment. It does not. He recognizes the problem but doesn't realize how easy it is to fix it. Just do away with winner take all elections. - LWM

Since the Constitution specifies how and when elections are to be conducted, how could you "do away" with the winning outcome without amending the constitution?

Apparently, Glenn's overall trust in Olberman is intact or he's got some "less evil" thing happening ...

Who said that? I'm pretty sure the last time I wrote about Keith Olbermann it was to criticize him rather vigorously.

But yes - compared to most of what is on TV - he's been one of the better commentators - one could say "by far" - when it comes to covering what this administration has done.

Is that actually in doubt?

I believe the prophecies indicated that Timberman would transubstantiate and BECOME the internet itself. Thus, we would all partake of him whenever we posted. Do this, he said, in his last post, in remembrance of me (also, he said to imagine a little bell ringing in the background).

My G*d, I thought William was a Protestant! Which Eucharistic prayer did he recite?

The old school media's pushback against the hiring of liberal commentators is akin to their dislike for progressive bloggers. Progressive commentators, like progressive blogs, are part of a reality based community that strives for direct answers to prescient questions of the day through fact checking and research.

This dynamic is completely unworkable for a 24 hour news channel absent considerable costs and resources. The goal of the 24 hour news channel is simply to create 24 hours of programming a day, everyday. And while direct answers and facts are pleasant, they take a terribly short time to report when compared with the endless debate one can have with regards to an open ended question. The result is a media environment where facts and answers are to be avoided even when available so as to not limit the potential for mindless debate. Injecting facts and answers into a debate, which progressives like Maddow consistently attempt to do, effectively destroys the debate driven dynamic of our current media. How can anyone expect CNN to stage 10 hours of faux talkinghead debates about the short term benefits of offshore drilling if a progressive like Maddow is allowed to inform the public via a primetime show that there are no short term benefits to offshore drilling? Come on people, they have 24 hours to fill here.

Snark aside, it is manifest that facts are destructive to a well spun media narrative. The traditional media knows this and thus avoids reporting facts at all costs. This dynamic is just fine with Conservative Republicans who couldn't survive as a party in the face of an informed electorate. Progressive Democrats from the "new media" don't play by the same rules and the traditional media's reaction is to exclude and marginalize progressive voices. Anything less and the whole media dynamic is threatened. The media pushback against progressive is simply a reactionary function of self preservation.

The pushback from print journalists like the one cited in Glen's piece is also driven in part by the need for self preservation, but for a slightly different reason. Anyone who works in an office knows that the employee who stays late and arrives early tends to make the entire office look bad by highlighting the ineptitude and complacenty of the other employees. Progressive commentators like Maddow play this role in the "journalist" office, highlighting the flaws and errors of their media counterparts. Maddows presence is threatening in that she clearly and concisely informs the public regarding topical issues, the same issues the complacent print journalists are tasked with writing about. Generally speaking, the more informed their readership, the more difficult it is for the folks at TNR to print substance free articles parroting whatever talking points they have been fed by their sources. The Joe Klein FISA fiasco is a great example of this dynamic. Klein was made to look like a fool when he published a substance free article on a topic his readership knew far more about than Klein himself.